Sitting of 15 February 1972

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

    ANGLESEY MARINE TERMINAL BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time Tuesday next.

    GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
    Read a Second time and committed.

    LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

    WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
    Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Value-Added Tax
    Mr. Hicksasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in his examination of value added tax, he will consider the desirability of all products used in the building and timber trades being subjected to the same rate of tax; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): We are considering all aspects of value-added tax but have no statement to make at this stage.
    Mr. Hicks: Would my hon. Friend note that the building and similar trades tend to be composed of a large number of small units and that any unnecessary administrative work places a disproportionate burden on their resources? Is he aware that if varying rates of V.A.T. were to be included on the same invoice, as if the present Customs and Excise classification were to operate, confusion would certainly arise?
    Mr. Higgins: Following publication of the Green Paper, this was a point put to us by many associations in the building and timber trades. We shall give it careful consideration.
    Mr. Jay: Can the hon. Gentleman give upon us one good reason for introducing value-added tax?
    Mr. Higgins: Yes. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman a number of very good reasons, most of which I deployed in the Finance Bill debates last year
    Mr. Joel Barnett: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the likely rate of V.A.T. will be given in this year's Budget? Does he realise that without that industry will find it impossible to plan ahead?
    Mr. Higgins: We have received representations on this point, too. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the statement which my right hon. Friend will make on Budget day.
    Mr. Spearingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish illustrative tables of the effects of introducing value-added tax at various stated rates on selected items of everyday and occasional consumption now subject to no or varying rates of purchase tax.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): We have under consideration suggestions of this type.
    Mr. Spearing: Since we were promised open and honest government, will the right hon. Gentleman hurry this matter up and publish these tables? Would he agree that the introduction of value-added tax means that people

    219
    with high discretionary income will have their income and purchasing power increased, whereas those with a low discretionary income will suffer a reduction? Could he confirm that fact?
    Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman must await the Budget for any details. However, the hon. Gentleman's premise is wrong. At this stage it would be misleading and confusing to issue comparative tables on the basis of hypothetical V.A.T. rates and in the absence of any announced decision about the scope and coverage of the tax. It is usual at the time of changes in indirect taxation to issue such illustrative tables as the hon. Gentleman suggests, and we are considering how best to do this. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated that at the time of the Budget debate he will produce details of the value-added tax in advance of the Finance Bill.
    Mr. Emery: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that directly after the Budget the illustrations to which he has referred will be available for wide circulation throughout the country and to traders generally? This will need to be done on a much larger scale than is normally done on the application of some new tax, and is something in respect of which traders and the public will look to the Government. They will expect them to provide these details immediately after the Budget rather than to await publication of the Finance Bill.
    Mr. Macmillan: I fully accept my hon. Friend's view that with a tax as new and as difficult as this, it is absolutely essential first of all that the traders who are to operate it should be fully informed: and, secondly, that the public affected by the tax should be fully informed as soon as possible.
    Mr. Sheldon: But since the Government have repeatedly refused to make available to hon. Members discussion papers which have been widely circulated to industry and commerce in general, will the hon. Gentleman look at this matter again? Will he say why he has been unable to present these papers to hon. Members for discussion when they have been freely available to everybody else? Why should we be excluded from participation in important decisions of this kind?
    Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman is not being excluded from participating in anything. The Customs and Excise Department is following its normal practice in discussing the administrative problems involved with the various trades and industries which will have to operate the tax, as far as they can be discussed without knowledge of the rates and the coverage, which my right hon. Friend will reveal in his Budget.

    Liquid Petroleum Gas
    Mr. Simeonsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reconsider his intention to place a tax on gas for use as fuel for road vehicles.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: All aspects of this matter, including in particular the effects on pollution, were fully discussed during the debate on last year's Finance Bill and I see no reason for interfering with the decision taken by the House then.
    Mr. Simeons: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a risk of him chasing his own tail and that if he creates a disincentive for people to use fuels which will not contaminate the air, they will use those which do, with the result that large amounts of money will be poured out by his hon. and right hon. Friends in mopping up the atmosphere?
    Mr. Macmillan: The difficulty is that a relatively small displacement from normal road vehicle fuel has a relatively large effect on revenue but not on the environment. The limited supplies of liquid petroleum gas now available are being fully used industrially where their effect in preventing pollution is as good as on the roads. The use of these fuels, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made clear, does not obviate the need for making ordinary motor fuels less polluted.
    Mr. Crouch: May I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that since we debated this matter last year there has been a substantial development in industry involving the use of liquid petroleum gas for reducing smoke emission in diesel engines? Is he aware that this work is only partly under way and that there is

    221
    a great deal to be done? Will he consider discussing this with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment?
    Mr. Macmillan: Most certainly. As my hon. Friend said, this work is of necessity development work. It is kept under review not only by the Treasury but by the Department of the Environment.

    Tax Offices (Correspondence)
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to ensure that letters from members of the public to the various tax offices are answered promptly.
    Mr. Higgins: The staff of tax offices make every endeavour to deal promptly with letters from members of the public. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind I shall be happy to look into it.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that, since the reorganisation of tax offices, there has been a growing volume of complaints from the public that tax offices take a long time to answer their letters and sometimes do not answer them at all? Is he aware that, since I returned to the House in June, I have had more complaints from members of the public on this subject than I had in the whole of the last Parliament?
    Mr. Higgins: Yes, I am aware of the correspondence which the hon. Gentleman has had with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Overall, the work situation in tax districts is now somewhat better than it has been in recent times. The matter the hon. Gentleman raises is of grave concern, and we will certainly look closely at any cases which are brought to our attention.
    Mr. Simon Mahon: Would it not help if the new tax offices which are envisaged were to be more rapidly completed? In my constituency a large tax office which would provide considerable employment is two years behind schedule. Will the Minister do something about getting it completed and tell me when it will be completed?
    Mr. Higgins: I will certainly bring that to the attention of my hon. Friend
    222
    the Financial Secretary who, I know, will look into it.

    Building Societies (Mortgage Rate)
    Mr. Walter Johnsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received on the subject of the rate of interest being charged by building societies for house mortgages.
    Mr. Higgins: None, Sir, since the building societies reduced their mortgage rates on 1st January.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that, while interest rates have been falling generally, building societies are still charging 8 per cent., sometimes more, and that the general public feel that they are being grossly exploited? Will the Government refer this matter to the Monopolies Commission or to another form of inquiry?
    Mr. Higgins: The public concern which the hon. Gentleman has expressed has not been reflected in the mailbag to which I referred.
    Mr. Johnson: I will show the hon. Gentleman my mail bag.
    Mr. Higgins: By all means—if the hon. Gentleman cares to send the letters to me. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry recently told the House that he did not consider that a reference of mortgage rates to the Monopolies Commission would be justified at present, although he would continue to keep the situation under review.
    Mr. McCrindle: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the present boom in private house building is being sustained by the continuing flow of funds into building societies? As building societies have to take a balanced view between the advantages of reducing the rate of interest to existing borrowers and continuing to attract funds to help new borrowers, are not they the best judges of when to reduce interest rates?
    Mr. Higgins: I entirely agree with the balanced view which my hon. Friend takes. If building societies do not pay the market rate to investors they will not attract sufficient funds to meet demands

    223
    for mortgages and will have to reduce their lending.

    Road Haulage Industry (Charges)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will undertake in his Budget statement to propose the abolition of the increase in charges on the road haulage industry imposed since October, 1964.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I thank my right hon. Friend for that not unexpected reply. Is he aware that the huge increases in taxation on this industry imposed by the Labour Government have done disproportionate damage to the economy of Scotland and that the reversal of these increases would give disproportionate advantage to the economy of Scotland? Does he not agree that the only explanation for the failure of the Labour Party to support representations we have made on this point is a remarkably sordid collective guilty conscience?
    Mr. Macmillan: I have noted my hon. Friend's specific suggestion as well as his more general suggestion. There has been a large increase both in the tonnage carried and in the ton-mileage performed by the road haulage industry, and it is essential that resources used for transport, whether road or rail, should show a proper return.

    Reserves
    Mr. Parkinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of official reserves.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: At end-January, converted at the middle rate, £2,679 million.
    Mr. Parkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and welcome the record level of the reserves. I urge my right hon. Friend to take advantage of this record level, first, by lifting some of the restrictions on overseas investment, which are too stringent and much too long-standing, and, secondly, by lowering Bank rate, which would be a major contribution towards giving investment the fillip which we all agree it needs.
    Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on his second proposal. On his first proposal, these matters are under constant study and review.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: As that clearly was a well-planted Question and the Minister obviously has in front of him many replies, will he tell us the cost in terms of increased employment of every £1 million increase in the reserves?
    Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman is on a wrong premise. The Government have not sought increases in reserves at the expense of the domestic economy. The high level of reserves reflects the strength of the balance of payments and is an extremely good basis for the reflationary measures which my right hon. Friend has already taken.

    National Savings
    Mr. Huntasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total growth in National Savings since June, 1970.
    Mr. Higgins: The total amount invested in National Savings in June, 1970, was £8,500 million. By December, 1971, this figure had risen to £9,216 million—an increase of £716 million or almost 8½ per cent. in the 18 months.
    Mr. Hunt: Do not these excellent figures reflect confidence in the integrity and ability of the Government? To maintain the momentum of this National Savings boom, will my hon. Friend ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider further tax incentives to saving in the coming Budget?
    Mr. Higgins: My hon. Friend's first remark is correct and is true also of the previous period of Conservative Government. This figure contrasts with the 4½ years prior to June, 1970, when National Savings increased by only £134 million. It is important as a long-term measure to do everything possible to encourage savings. On the specific point raised by my hon. Friend, I am sure he does not expect me to anticipate anything which my right hon. Friend may say in his Budget speech.
    Mr. Heffer: Does not that figure prove precisely the opposite—that the growth in National Savings is because people are

    225
    becoming worried about their future, and, under a Tory Government, are putting their money into savings because they fear that they will soon be unemployed?
    Mr. Higgins: I do not think that is so. As I say, higher savings provide a firm foundation for a period of sustainable economic growth and higher employment, and that is what we are determined to achieve.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Without in any way being tempted to anticipate the Budget, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the present Prime Minister when speaking from the Opposition Front Bench in 1965 promised the abolition of capital gains duty on unit trusts? As unit trusts are a formidably important source of new savings, will my hon. Friend study the Prime Minister's undertaking on that earlier occasion?
    Mr. Higgins: I will certainly bear in mind the point raised by my hon. Friend, but of course this matter obviously comes within the scope of the Budget.

    International Monetary Situation
    Mr. Coombsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the current international monetary situation.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The immediate situation is satisfactory, but there is an underlying need to make progress with the reform of the international monetary system.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend please expand as soon as possible, I hope today, on how discussions are going on the long-term reform of the international monetary system along the lines set out in the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last September?
    Mr. Macmillan: The subject is under discussion in the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund. As my hon. Friend will understand, the substance of those discussions must remain confidential. Treasury Ministers and officials exchange views with their opposite numbers in other countries whenever opportunity offers. We cannot expect progress to be very quick on changes as fundamental as those suggested by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Ex-
    226
    chequer at last September's I.M.F. meeting.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the difficulties relating to the dollar as an acceptable medium of exchange for I.M.F. transactions, which is a symptom of the underlying difficulty of the present world monetary system, in particular relation to our repayment of debt, have been sorted out?
    Mr. Macmillan: There is a later Question on the Order Paper on this subject. I agree that it is not satisfactory that I.M.F. operations should be hampered as they are at present by dollar inconvertibility. I hope that it will soon be possible to find a way round so that we can get back to normal.

    New Halfpenny
    Mr. Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the growing disuse of the new halfpenny, he will now withdraw this coin from circulation.
    Mr. Higgins: No, Sir: this coin, equivalent to 1·2 old pennies, has an important rôle to play in price shading. It is widely used, especially in food prices, and almost 1,150 million are in circulation.
    Mr. Lipton: But with the cost of living rising at its present rate, will it be long before this wretched little coin ceases to have any value whatever, since already the banks ignore it in calculating their balances? It will not be long before this coin follows the old farthing and the old halfpenny.
    Mr. Higgins: With respect to the hon. Gentleman. I think he has the necessary action the wrong way round. The fact is that this coin enables traders to shade their prices, and clearly if the coin did not exist it is likely that there would be considerable rounding up. It is an amount of considerable value when compared with the previous value of the old penny. I believe that it has a useful rôle to play.
    Miss Fookes: Would my hon. Friend consider increasing the present miserly size of this coin since there are difficulties in handling it, especially for the elderly who may have arthritic finger joints?
    Mr. Higgins: This matter was decided by the previous Administration. It is right to stress that it is important that there is a size/weight relationship between the various differentials. If we were to interfere with that, it would create considerable difficulties for organisations handling coins.

    Miners (Income Tax Rebates)
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what authority offices of the Inland Revenue have disclosed details of miners' income tax rebates to local offices of the Department of Social Security during the dispute in the coal industry.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The tax affairs of all individuals are protected by strict rules of confidentiality and the Inland Revenue does not make disclosures concerning them.
    Mr. Huckfield: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in the present dispute miners are most concerned that everybody seems to know about the miners' tax affairs except the miners themselves? Will he say under which rules of confidentiality offices such as the social security department know about miners' tax rebates before the miners are given any details?
    Mr. Macmillan: In no circumstances should tax offices disclose to Department of Health and Social Security officials or to anyone else details of any repayments made. However, computation of rebates likely to be made to the average miner, on assumptions about their likely pay and tax and family circumstances, were made by the Inland Revenue and for illustrative purposes were passed on to the Department of Health and Social Security. I repeat that in those computations there were no details about any actual person or any actual repayment made.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: In that calculation is account taken of concessionary coal which, we understand, bears no tax at all?
    Mr. Macmillan: The sole step the Inland Revenue took was to make a computation of the rebate that was likely to be made to an average miner on certain assumptions about likely tax, but no
    228
    detail was disclosed of any actual circumstances.

    Coinage
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now make a further statement concerning the introduction of a coin to be called a crown equal in value to 25p, and the phasing out of the old sixpence coin now 2½p.
    Mr. Higgins: I cannot at this stage add anything to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) on 21st January about an intermediate denomination between the 10p and 50p coins. The 2½p coin will remain legal tender at least until February, 1973. A decision about its future will be made in the light of experience over the two year experimental period from D-Day.—[Vol. 829, c. 300.]
    Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want the House to know that there are thousands of people outside, many of whom have been trampled on. The doors have been locked to many of my constituents and to the constituents of other hon. Members. I would like you, Sir, to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to this affair to see whether the situation can be remedied.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a good deal of public feeling that the gap is much too wide between the 10p piece and the 50p piece, especially as one tends to accumulate in one's pockets a large number of 10p pieces? Should not the Treasury endeavour to lighten that load in the interest of personal security?
    Mr. Higgins: I have referred to this matter in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead. Although my hon. Friend feels that there is some case for this suggestion, it is none the less important that the public should have an opportunity of getting used to the existing denominations. I believe the time has not yet come when we can reasonably make a decision on this point, but I have noted what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman ignore the terrible situation in the pockets

    229
    of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)? We are not concerned with that. What we are mainly concerned with is the abolition of the halfpenny.
    Mr. Higgins: I thought I had already dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point, and I feel bound to say that the whole premise of his earlier point, which does not arise on this Question, is totally false. There are as many new halfpennies in circulation as new pennies, and next year we expect demand for new halfpennies to increase by more than 180 million.

    Investment
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new steps he now proposes to take to improve the rate of investment.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The Government have already taken considerable action to encourage investment, both directly and by stimulating demand.
    Mr. Ashley: Leaving aside the Government's complacency, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Industrial Policy Group's statement about investment, which was highly discouraging, was both stupid and irresponsible at a time when we have a million unemployed? Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House his right hon. Friend's view of what the Government propose to do about overcoming the reluctance of British industrialists to invest at present?
    Mr. Macmillan: The authors of the Industrial Policy Group report have, as the hon. Gentleman knows, expressed doubt whether this country suffers from a shortage of investment at present. The Government and the leaders of the C.B.I. do not accept that view. The level of manufacturing investment in 1971 is likely to be higher than earlier estimates suggested. The revised estimates for the third quarter show a rise of 5 per cent. over the second quarter level.
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made clear to the House the steps that he has taken to encourage investment. As for the rest, the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: It is a pleasant change to hear my right hon. Friend sug-
    230
    gest that things are getting better in investment for industry. However, that is not the general impression of those engaged in business. Will my right hon. Friend look at Questions Nos. 14 and 15 together, since it is the uncertainty about the value-added tax which plays a big part in keeping back investment?
    Mr. Macmillan: I do not accept that uncertainty about the value-added tax is the cause. If it were, that would be removed very shortly. It is true, however, that uncertainty over the inflationary situation has contributed to the reluctance to invest. If hon. Members want more investment and more prosperity for the nation, the House as a whole had better help the Government to keep down the rise in wages and prices.
    Mr. Taverne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's total mismanagement of the present fuel crisis will postpone the pick-up of the economy and that the immediate-term and short-term outlook for unemployment will be even more depressing? Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that even more vigorous action will be required than would have been the case before the fuel crisis?
    Mr. Macmillan: It is early to judge the effect of the miners' strike and how it will affect both confidence and investment. A great deal will depend upon the outcome of the Wilberforce Inquiry and when the miners return to work. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to increase investment and to improve prosperity, I hope that they will bear this in mind and do what they can to encourage the end of the strike.

    £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
    Mr. Carterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present value of the £ sterling compared to June. 1970.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current real purchasing power of the sterling as compared with 18th June, 1970.
    Mr. Higgins: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary gave to similar Questions from the hon. Members for

    231
    Rugby (Mr. William Price), Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) on 25th January.—[Vol. 829; c. 1181.]
    Mr. Carter: That was not a reply to my Question. But if the hon. Gentleman is so embarrassed about what would have been the answer, may I remind him that it would have been an admission on the part of the Government of a total failure to carry out their pledge at the General Election to cut inflation at a stroke? Is the hon. Gentleman aware, further, that the economic chaos that we see today is directly attributable to his Government's turn-about on that policy and, in particular, the introduction of measures which have fanned the flames of inflation?
    Mr. Higgins: I think that it was a very clear answer and that, if the hon. Gentleman looks up the HANSARD reference, he will see that that is so. There has been a continuous month-by-month improvement in the retail price index since April, and the deceleration in the wholesale price index has been even faster. There has been a significant improvement—
    Mr. Carter: What is it?
    Mr. Higgins: The purchasing power of the £, taken as 100p in June, 1970, was 96½p in December, 1970, and 90½p in June, 1971. It has fallen only 2p in the last six months, compared with a fall of 6p in the preceding six months and 3½p in the corresponding period of 1970.
    Mrs. Knight: Will my hon. Friend convey to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the concern of the public in general and housewives in particular that an over-generous settlement with the miners will lead to a further increase in the cost of living?
    Mr. Higgins: This is another of the points to which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has just referred. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) will refer to the HANSARD reference that I have given him, he will see the answer clearly set out there.
    Mr. Lamond: In the absence of up-to-date figures as of today's date, would the
    232
    hon. Gentleman care to estimate the date on which the £ will have become the 10-shilling pound which the electors were led to believe would happen only under a Labour Government?
    Mr. Higgins: I return to the point that I made to the hon. Member for Northfield. The fact is that it has not changed since the last answer to which I have referred. The answer which was then given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary was that, on the basis of the movement of the general index of retail prices, the purchasing power of the £ fell by 3·5 per cent. between mid-June, 1970, and mid-December, 1970, and by 6 per cent. between mid-December. 1970. and mid-June, 1971. In the three months since June, the retail price index has risen by about three-quarters of 1 per cent.

    Overseas Debt
    Mr. Hordernasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now give the present state of the United Kingdom's short and medium-term debts to the International Monetary Fund and other international bodies net of loans made through use of the Reciprocal Swap Facility.
    Mr. Parkinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of short-term and medium-term official overseas debt outstanding; and how this compares with June, 1970.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: At end-June 1970 the United Kingdom's short and medium-term official overseas debt amounted to £1,461 million.
    At the end of last month it had been reduced to £415 million.
    Mr. Hordern: Apart from the technical difficulties in repaying dollars which no one seems to want, is it now the case that we are quite clear of all the vast burden of short and medium-term indebtedness which the previous Administration left behind them? Is not it now the case that we are heading for the largest surplus on the balance of payments ever? Are not these the conditions for sustained and rapid economic growth, which would be assisted even more by a timely and generous cut in the Bank Rate?
    Mr. Macmillan: I cannot comment on my hon. Friend's last sentence, but I agree fully with what he said in the remainder of his supplementary question. I remind the House that it is a technical difficulty of repaying the remaining £415 million of debt which is causing the hold-up.
    Mr. Parkinson: In view of the reply which I received earlier about our large reserves, and in view of the small indebtedness about which we have just heard, may I take this second opportunity to urge my right hon. Friend to consider lifting or relaxing the restrictions on overseas investment?
    Mr. Macmillan: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestions.
    Dr. Gilbert: In view of the comments about the problems of convertibility, can the right hon. Gentleman say something about the Government's proposals to deal with the problems, and can he assure us that in no circumstances are the Government's endeavours being directed to trying to influence the American authorities to restore convertibility into gold?
    Mr. Macmillan: As I said in answer to an earlier Question, the detail of the discussions taking place in the I.M.F. is confidential. But I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the points made by the hon. Gentleman, and I can assure him that the discussions are continuing.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rate of repayment of debt in the past 18 months, which we welcome, has been just about the same as the rate of repayment in the 18 months to June, 1970, and that what has happened makes nonsense of one of the main Conservative propaganda points at the General Election that we had debts hanging round our shoulders for many years to come?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman also apply himself to the point put to him by the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) that, with no effective debt remaining and the balance of payments being very strong, there is an overwhelm-
    234
    ing argument for using this situation to expand the economy?
    Mr. Macmillan: I made it clear, in answer to an earlier question, that I regarded the current situation as a base from which to carry out a sustained expansion of the economy. Notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's remark, the overall debt of this country, which went up under the previous Administration, has now been wiped out under this Administration.

    Development Areas (Free Trade Zones)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the establishment of one or two free trade zones in development areas.
    Mr. Higgins: This is not a simple matter, but if specific proposals are put forward by industry we shall be prepared without commitment to examine them.
    Mr. Tilney: Since Germany has five free ports and Italy six, is it not sensible for this country, as an applicant to the European Economic Community, to follow the Irish tradition and have manufacturing, as at Shannon, in one of our development areas?
    Mr. Higgins: We shall be prepared, without commitment, to examine the kind of proposal which my hon. Friend suggested. The existing system for giving duty relief on imported goods and materials which are re-exported or used in making goods for export is flexible, well understood, and works well, and it involves fewer restrictions and controls than are likely to be involved in a Customs-free trade zone.

    Vehicles (Revenue)
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total revenue derived from the vehicle excise duty, purchase tax on vehicles, and excise duty on hydrocarbon oils, respectively, in the last year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Higgins: In the financial year 1970–71, motor vehicle duties yielded £421 million, purchase tax on vehicles £267 million and the hydrocarbon oil duty £1,396 million, of which £1,263 million was in respect of road fuel.
    Mr. Chapman: My hon. Friend knows that £621 million was expended in the same year on the provision of new and the maintenance of existing roads. Since it is the erroneous belief of many motorists that this is all they get back from the vast sums which they pay in tax, will my hon. Friend, as a matter of urgency, consider publishing—at least before the Budget statement—the true cost of the maintenance of roads and provision of new roads by local authorities as well as by the central Government, such costs including road signs, markings, clearing and cleaning of roads, policing and traffic signals?
    Mr. Higgins: I will certainly consider what my hon. Friend said. However, a more fundamental point which needs to be made is that in many ways the viewpoint which he has summarised is misconceived since expenditure on roads is governed by the amount of resources which we can afford to allocate to them in competition with other claims on the national product.
    Mr. Dalyell: On hydrocarbon oils, is the Treasury considering the proposals put forward in last year's Finance Bill about favourable treatment for liquefied petroleum gas?
    Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have dealt with this matter, which was raised in earlier Questions this afternoon, in debate. We are still considering the rate which should be charged. I hope that we shall make an announcement soon.

    Purchase Tax
    Mr. Kinnockasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to make selective cuts in purchase tax to favour goods produced in development areas.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. Kinnock: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does more than that, otherwise we might be convinced that the Government's lack of sensitivity towards regional problems is matched only by their lack of ingenuity. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a desperate need for extra substantial
    236
    inducement for the regions and that this suggestion could have a worthwhile effect on prices generally?
    Mr. Macmillan: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said; but, as this is a Budget matter, the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to be more precise at this stage.

    Tax Revenue
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional tax revenue he expects to receive due to the current financial year having 366 days.
    Mr. Higgins: The extra day is not expected to have any measureable net influence; revenue will be increased, but so, too, will expenditure.
    Mr. Ashton: Is it not a fact that people who work 28 days in February get the same pay as those who work 29 days in February, especially if they are paid monthly? What is happening to this extra's day's production? Are the bosses getting it? If as the Minister of State says, the Treasury is not getting it, where is that extra day's work going in that 29-day period?
    Mr. Higgins: It will depend to some extent on the day of the week on which the extra day falls. It is not possible to give a quantitative estimate of the point which the hon. Gentleman has made.
    Mr. Tebbit: Does my hon. Friend know of anyone who will work either 28 or 29 days in the month of February?
    Mr. Higgins: That is a point to which I must give further thought.

  OCEANOLOGY
  Sir C. Taylorasked the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for oceanology.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Because of the diversity of the interests involved, it would be impracticable for a single Minister to take responsibility for the whole of this subject. But there is already close co-ordination between the Ministers concerned with the different aspects of oceanology.
  Sir C. Taylor: In view of the importance of both the sea and the seabed, would it not be a good idea for one Minister to co-ordinate the importance of oil, minerals, food, building materials, metals, chemicals, fresh water supplies and 101 other things so that the whole aspect of production from the sea and the seabed can be co-ordinated?
  The Prime Minister: The list which my hon. Friend has given, which is by no means comprehensive, shows the difficulty of bringing all aspects of this matter under one Minister. The matter was examined by the previous Administration, and in their White Paper on Marine Science and Technology of April, 1969 they came to the conclusion that it was impracticable to have one Minister. The Select Committee on Science and Technology, which reported on this matter in July, 1969, also came to the same conclusion.
  Mr. Pardoe: Is the Prime Minister aware that the return on capital invested in oceanology would be far higher than the return on capital invested in flights to the moon or in other space endeavours? Since other countries are not spending on oceanology anything like the amount they are spending on the moon—particularly America—would it not be better if we gave the lead and appointed one Minister and spent more money developing this subject?
  The Prime Minister: I have given sufficient reasons for not appointing one Minister. I agree that we should attach considerable importance to work on oceanography. The Natural Environment Research Council's research programmes related to the subject are now costing about £6 million. The Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food's Fisheries Research Laboratory is also carrying out a wide range of studies on some of these matters, particularly on the conservation of fish and shellfish stocks. We are also helping in international organisations.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the White Paper and the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, to which he referred, were not totally coincidental in their view? Some concern was expressed by the Select Committee, particularly on the development of marine
  238
  technology, and it felt that the White Paper was inadequate to meet the real needs of the nation.
  The Prime Minister: I am prepared to consider that matter afresh, but I do not think that it affects the question of having one Minister to deal with all the different aspects of it. However, from the point of view of looking at marine technology, I will consult the Departments concerned.

  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech at Leeds by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 28th January on prices and incomes represents Government policy.
  Mr. Joel Barnettasked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Leeds on 28th January on unemployment represents Government policy.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I would emphasise particularly my right hon. Friend's conclusion that price and pay moderation are two of the preconditions for the sustained improvement of living standards and for rising employment.
  Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that that kind of intransigence has led to the national disaster which now faces the Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that, having marched with 20,000 miners and their wives today, I can say that whatever this prices and incomes policy may mean to the Government, as far as they are concerned, it must represent about £5 for face workers and £9 for those underground if this disaster is not to engulf him and the establishment which he represents?
  The Prime Minister: In that case, it happens to be something shared by the establishment opposite as well, because price and pay moderation were two of the pre-conditions which were emphasised in every White Paper produced by the Labour Party when in Government, and particularly by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) when he was Chancellor of the

  239
  Exchequer. Any particular matters concerned with the present dispute are for the inquiry.
  Mr. Barnett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told us last night that the methods used to meet the present economic chaos and massive unemployment were carefully planned last November? So that we can learn the lessons from this, would the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing a White Paper to show the economic costs of this carefully laid plan by comparison with the likely cost of settling this strike before it had even started?
  The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend said—I heard him say it—was that so far as industry was concerned, there had been criticisms that no arrangements had been made until last week for the means by which, if it were necessary, power supply would be rationed. He pointed out that there had been long consultation with industry as to how this could be done and that, in any case, it would not have been possible to send out notices to 20,000 different firms if the allegations were true.
  Mr. Onslow: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this Question provides an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to remedy the fact that, yesterday, his Front Bench spokesmen dodged the question whether they believed that the miners should return to work pending the inquiry and that it would be in the public interest if this deficiency were now made good?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I believe that that is a fair question to put to the Leader of the Opposition. I should have hoped that he and his Front Bench spokesmen would have answered it unequivocally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where were you?"] I was here for the opening speeches. I would have hoped that, in view of his experience in Government, when he made the same appeal himself, the right hon. Gentleman would have made an appeal on this occasion to the N.U.M.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Has the right hon. Gentleman studied what I said in Saturday on this point? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I made it clear then that there should be an immediate return to work—
  Mr. Onslow: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman's Front Bench spokesmen say that?
  Mr. Wilson:—on the understanding that the Prime Minister on Saturday should have intervened with both sides, got the issue settled over the weekend and saved a week. Is he aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes or no?"] I have already said it—on Saturday. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I said on Saturday that the miners should return to work but that a prior condition was that the Prime Minister should start work first?
  The Prime Minister: In his speech the right hon. Gentleman asked me to intervene to ensure that the court of inquiry was speedily convened and got on with its work. In fact, the court of inquiry had by then already been set up and was already at work. On Sunday it was at work, and announced that it was prepared to see the parties yesterday, so there was no reason for me to intervene to speed up the court of inquiry.

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister what recent communications he has had with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic concerning Northern Ireland and the Irish Republican Army.
  The Prime Minister: I am in touch as and when necessary with Mr. Lynch about matters of mutual concern. The Government of the Irish Republic are very well aware of our views on the rôle they should play in controlling the I.R.A. south of the Border.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since the Border is the bone of contention, will the Government, while upholding the Northern Ireland Constitution, seek to take the Border out of Stormont politics and adopt my referendum Bill?
  The Prime Minister: Many people are giving consideration to the question whether a referendum should be held and whether it should be held at regular intervals. But, as the question is about Mr. Lynch and the Irish Republic, I can only say that he has repeatedly said that he recognises that the unification of Ireland cannot be brought about

  241
  speedily and that it cannot be brought about against the wishes of more than one million Protestants in Northern Ireland. He has made that clear.
  Mr. Duffy: Yes, but if the right hon. Gentleman is considering periodic referenda on the reunification of Ireland, as is widely reported, he must couch it and present it in the most positive terms, with a view to promoting the necessary basis for change by consent. Otherwise it will be interpreted on one side as an evasion of responsibility on his part and may meet with a barren response.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is correct. That is why I mentioned, in answer to my hon. Friend, that many people are considering this matter—because a number of important aspects are involved. There are some south of the Border who would interpret this as meaning that it would never be possible to bring unification about, while others, north of the Border, would consider that a referendum was not such an effective measure in dealing with this problem as a parliamentary vote. That is why I said that one has to take all these points into account.

  PRIME MINISTER (RESPONSIBILITIES)
  Mr. Spearingasked the Prime Minister if he will give the details of the official articles or published papers he has written on matters relating to his responsibilities since assuming office.
  The Prime Minister: None, Sir.
  Mr. Spearing: Would the Prime Minister recognise that that is a disappointing reply? Would he also read certain articles relating to his responsibilities? Is he not aware that, in last week's Labour Weekly, which he should have read, an article showed that, had the miners accepted the £2 offer of the Coal Board, by April, when the Government have erected their means test barriers, some of them would be taking home less pay? Would he not agree that, if the Government persist in putting up means-test barriers to people on low or medium incomes, this will inevitably mean large wage claims?
  The Prime Minister: I have written no articles, as I told the hon. Gentleman. I am certainly not responsible for that which he mentions.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will my right hon. Friend write an article on law and order? Will he, in this article, draw attention to the curious position of the Leader of the Opposition who a moment ago said that the miners should go back to work pending a settlement, whereas five minutes ago I heard him in the Grand Committee Room assuring the miners of the fullest support in their struggle and congratulating them on the demonstration now illegally taking place in Parliament Square?
  The Prime Minister: It is not for me to explain the inner contradictions of the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is no contradiction? The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) has an accurate report of what I said in Great Westminster Hall at 3.10 p.m. We have backed the miners in this, we have backed them in this House in our votes and we shall continue to back them. What we cannot understand is the contradiction of the right hon. Gentleman himself whose only intervention in this dispute was last Friday at a Conservative meeting in Liverpool, but I asked him to intervene on Saturday and settle the dispute.
  The Prime Minister: Whatever the Leader of the Opposition may or may not have said, I see that the National Executive of the Labour Party yesterday passed a resolution giving full support to the miners—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am not sure whether it was the original 35 per cent. claim or the present 25 per cent. claim to which that resolution referred. Whichever it may be, it is not possible to give full support to that claim and at the same time to pretend that one is against inflation and unemployment.

  PRESIDENT NIXON (DISCUSSIONS)
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister when he next hopes to meet President Nixon; and if he will discuss with him mutual relations with the People's Republic of China.
  The Prime Minister: As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member's Question of 18th January, relations with the People's Republic of China were among the subjects discussed when I met President Nixon in Bermuda on 20th and 21st December. We have at present no plans for further meetings.—[Vol. 829, c. 150–1.]
  Mr. Dalyell: Was not this morning's news of the lifting of the American embargo on trade with China entirely predictable? Why should British exporters be put at a considerable disadvantage by our policy on Taiwan?
  The Prime Minister: We have been trading freely with China all through this period, when the Americans have not. Both our countries are covered by the Cocom procedure. As I understand it, there is no change in that respect, because the list is a matter of agreement with the countries concerned. As for Taiwan, we have no relations with Taiwan and I do not see why our trade with China should suffer in that respect. Of course it is true that our trade with China, like our trade with Soviet Russia, has fluctuated considerably at different periods. Over the last four years it has fluctuated between roughly £30 million and £55 million. But, at the same time, as I told the hon. Member, we are in discussion with the Government of the People's Republic about our future diplomatic relations with them.
  Mr. Rankin: Would the Prime Minister say whether, during his discussions with the President of the United States, there was still hostility to China, not only to China's foreign policy but to the expansion of China in Asia?
  The Prime Minister: We have had no hostility to China. We have had diplomatic relations with China since the Labour Government of 1950. Moreover, I should have thought that the world appreciated the importance of President Nixon's forthcoming visit to Peking and that it was an indication that the United States wants a dialogue with Peking. It was this assurance which President Nixon gave me.

COAL MINERS (MASS LOBBY)
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is right that I should report to the House on the circumstances of the mass lobby taking place, which I have specifically been to see to ensure that everything was carried out in accordance with the recent proposals of the Services Committee, and, indeed, in the best interests of all concerned.
I assure the House that every effort is being made on behalf of all those concerned to ensure that this demonstration is properly and peacefully conducted. Every effort is being made to ensure that those in very large numbers who wish to come into this House and into Committee Rooms are able to do so. I specifically made arrangements myself when there for an extra 500 people to be admitted immediately, and that has been done.
I pay a considerable tribute to the right hon. Gentleman the Opposition Chief Whip, who has taken a considerable part in ensuring that this demonstration is properly conducted and that everything is being done that should be done in accordance with the traditions of the House.
I also pay a considerable tribute to some of the stewards of the march with whom I have spoken, who are taking every precaution to make sure that their members are doing everything they can to pursue it on a peaceful basis. The large numbers create considerable problems for the police. I should also like to say how much I admire the work of the police and the authorities of the House in a very difficult situation. All concerned are conducting it in a way in which I would regard as the highest in British traditions.
Mr. Michael Foot: We appreciate the statement that the right hon. Gentleman has just made and the efforts that he has made, together with my right hon. Friend and others, to ensure that the dangerous situation that seemed to be arising half an hour ago outside the House should be properly dealt with. We are grateful to him for making the statement. Would he undertake to keep a very close watch on the situation to ensure that large numbers of miners are able to come into the House

245
and that they are able to exercise their democratic rights to meet their Members of Parliament and others in the House, and if by any mischance there is any hold up in this procedure, will he make a further report to the House? I am sure that he would agree that we all wish to ensure that miners coming on this lobby should have full access to their Members of Parliament in this House to be able to put their view.
Mr. Whitelaw: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, within the limits of the accommodation of the House and what numbers can properly be admitted, those who can be admitted will certainly be so. How many are admitted of the large numbers inevitably ultimately depends upon how quickly those who come in then move through and go out again. This point is very much in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Opposition Chief Whip, and this will be done. This is very important because obviously the House cannot accommodate more than a certain number at any one time.
As for my interests in the matter, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He would accept that my determination both to go there to see to it and to return and to report to the House is evidence that I wish to see that, within the reasons proper to the House, every help is given. It cannot be possible, necessarily, to accommodate in this House everyone who might want to come in at any particular time, because that clearly is not within the capacity of the buildings or the arrangements that can be made here. But, within those premises, everything is being done that can reasonably be done.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, and endorsing the tributes paid by my hon. Friend to the right hon. Gentleman and to my right hon. Friend, both for their concern in this matter and for their effective handling of it, may I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, should there be difficulties which are, perhaps, not immediately reported to him—although I hope they will be—if any hon. Member has a difficulty to raise, instead of the important debate today being interrupted, the matter should be taken straight to the right hon. Gentleman's office so that
246
he can intervene? Perhaps Mr. Speaker, if any of your successors in the Chair were notified of that it would help the smoothness of our debate and the speed with which the right hon. Gentleman would wish to deal with any situation, as I am sure he would want to do it quickly.
Mr. Speaker: I would only add, on behalf of the Chair, that I have been in touch with the situation throughout and have taken such steps as I can to ensure that the matter is handled in the best possible manner.

WHITTINGHAM HOSPITAL
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the administration of, and conditions at, Whittingham Hospital, near Preston, Lancashire. The report has been published this afternoon in Command Paper No. 4861.
Allegations of ill-treatment of patients, fraud and maladministration at Whittingham were made in confidence to my predecessor in 1969. These were followed by a special audit investigation and inquiries by the police. Shortly after the police inquiries were completed a nurse was tried and convicted of manslaughter of a patient. As soon as I was free to do so after these proceedings I set up the committee of inquiry, which made its report to me early in November. Publication of the report has been delayed while charges against two other nurses, on which both were acquitted. were before the courts.
The report is very disturbing. It is highly critical of standards of medical and nursing services in some parts of the hospital, particularly for longer-stay patients, and of the management. It also criticises the Manchester Regional Hospital Board, and to some extent my Department also. With a few qualifications, which are not however central to the main issues, I accept the conclusions and recommendations.
The report assesses Whittingham as a hospital of wide contrasts and an extreme example of a hospital which has failed

247
to keep up with the times. Side by side with some good modern services, it found in the long-stay wards evidence of old-fashioned methods, inadequate treatment and rehabilitation, poor buildings and insufficient medical and nursing staff. The report severely criticises the medical and nursing administration, the management structure and the way these worked; it describes the result as a hospital with day-to-day tactics but no overall strategy The committee of inquiry believes that in these conditions there have been instances of ill-treatment and large-scale pilfering by some members of the staff and the further evil of suppression of complaints about such practices when made by junior staff.
As the House knows, I have set up a Committee to review the procedures for dealing with complaints in hospitals, and I have arranged for this most distressing aspect of the Whittingham Report to be brought to its attention.
The report apportions a share of the blame for the general state of affairs at Whittingham to the regional hospital board, which, while pioneering the establishment of psychiatric units in general hospitals, did not adequately recognise the needs of elderly long-stay patients, which led to dual standards of care. I accept that my own Department as well as others may not have been sufficiently alive to this danger in earlier years. Our present policies take full account of it.
The report recommends that all members of the Whittingham Hospital Management Committee should be invited to resign and the committee reconstituted. It also recommends complete operational integration of the medical and nursing services at Whittingham with those of the psychiatric unit at Preston. Such integration is undoubtedly most desirable, but in my view it is doubtful whether it can be achieved satisfactorily without amalgamating under a single hospital management committee the hospitals at present in the Whittingham and in the Preston and Chorley groups. The board has already started local consultations on proposals for amalgamation. The chairman of the Whittingham committee resigned in December on grounds of ill-health, and four other members have resigned in the course of discussions of the proposed amalgamation. With my
248
endorsement the chairman of the board is inviting the remaining member to resign so that a reconstituted committee can be appointed with amalgamation with the Preston and Chorley group of hospitals in mind at an early date. The new committee will need to consider the many detailed recommendations in the report for improvements at Whittingham itself. There have already been important staff changes.
This report highlights two of the most important problems facing the hospital service today: the proper care and treatment of longer-stay and elderly patients in large isolated mental hospitals, and the proper planning of the transition from services based on such hospitals to services based on departments in general hospitals. I have asked all boards to review their services for longer-stay mentally ill patients, looking particularly at outmoded attitudes, at allocation of staff, and at management policies and organisation. Each board is also now working out and discussing with my Department plans for the restructuring of its services for the mentally ill; these will provide for a properly organised transition to services based in general hospitals, and improved standards in the old mental hospitals until they eventually close.
It would be wrong to jump to general conclusions from the indictment in this report of some parts of one hospital. There have been enormous improvements in the last 20 years in nearly all psychiatric hospitals. The great majority of staff, at Whittingham as well as elsewhere, work with patience and devotion, often in difficult and unsatisfactory conditions, which we are now making great efforts to remedy.
I have referred in this statement to the main points which arise from the report. The Command Paper includes a foreword I have written which contains similar comments and also refers in more detail to the recommendations addressed to my Department and to the regional hospital board; action on most of these has already been taken or is under way.
The House will, I am sure, be grateful, as I am, to Sir Robert Payne and the other members of the Committee for the time and effort they devoted to their inquiry and to producing this forthright and constructive report. Ever since I have been in office I have been continuing

249
the theme of my predecessor in concentrating on improvements in this and related fields where they are most needed. The House can be sure that the lessons of this report will not be forgotten.
Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. Gentleman is to be thanked for the forthright and clear way in which he has presented the report. In view of the extremely serious and shocking revelations in it, will he accept that the recommendations should be implemented as soon as possible? Will he bear in mind the deep concern of all hon. Members that the report is the latest in a succession of hospital scandals, following as it does the 1968 inquiry into the "Sans Everything" allegations, the 1969 Ely Hospital inquiry and last year's Farleigh Hospital inquiry?
As we are dealing with the most vulnerable in the community, who are entirely dependent on the compassion or the disciplined care of others, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman four specific questions.
First, what immediate steps will the right hon. Gentleman take to ensure that not only in Whittingham but in similar hospitals there is from now on first-class, efficient management and co-ordination between hospital management committees, regional hospital boards and medical nursing administrators?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman take immediate steps to increase the inspection of all such hospitals by the General Nursing Council at more frequent intervals and encourage a more rapid turnover of staff, periodically bringing in new staff from outside, because in such hospitals the staff become as institutionalised as the patients?
Thirdly, will the Secretary of State encourage the more active rehabilitation of long-stay chronic or psycho-geriatric patients, with increased transfer to community care, and will he consider giving greater powers to his proposed community health councils in the forthcoming reorganisation of the National Health Service?
Fourthly, we note no mention in the right hon. Gentleman's statement of the Ombudsman. Will he recognise that there is public anxiety about the lack of investigation of complaints into the
250
National Health Service and that his Committee to investigate the rôle and setup of the Hospital Advisory Service is no substitute for a hospital Ombudsman, because such complaints need an independent procedure outside the National Health Service? Will he seriously consider the setting up of a hospital commissioner?
Sir K. Joseph: The Government treat extremely urgently the carrying out of all the recommendations in the report. It is true that there has been a series of revelations connected with the mental-illness and mental-handicap hospitals. These to some extent reflect the higher standards the community now expects, in that conditions are being revealed that used to be taken for granted. On all the hon. Lady's points except two I can give wholehearted agreement. I cannot bind the General Nursing Council, which is an independent body, but I know it will note the hon. Lady's comments. The question of a health commissioner is a separate matter. I am pledged to make a statement to the House about it as soon as possible.
Mr. Gardner: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and especially for the answer he gave to my urgent question on Friday. Will he make sure that three things are done: first, that all traces of the causes of the scandals referred to in the report are removed; secondly, that the present loyal and devoted staff who are working to restore the fine reputation of the hospital are given every encouragement; thirdly, that the inquiry into the premature and unauthorised publication of the report last week is published as soon as possible?
Sir K. Joseph: I know the intense interest and concern of my hon. and learned Friend about ail these matters. I wish I could tell him there was a magic wand by which any Government could remove instantaneously all the factors that have led to the conditions in question. We shall do our best to act as quickly as possible. Certainly, the Government wish to encourage and pay tribute to the devoted work of the vast majority of the staff at Whittingham and the other similar hospitals. I will certainly let the public know as soon as I have any information about the cause of the leakage.
Mr. Mayhew: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. Does he agree that the final and proper solution to this appalling problem—this horrifying report bears out the worst that has been said against mental hospitals by their most outspoken critics—is to find alternative accommodation for the patients, to empty the hospitals and then raze them to the ground in the shortest possible time? Will he therefore work out and issue a White Paper on services for the mentally-sick as he has on services for the mentally-handicapped, setting out a timetable, budgeting and costings, so that these hospitals can be emptied and finished with, at most within 15 years from now?
Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman's compassionate concern for those who are mentally ill is well known, and I pay tribute to it. But, with the very best will in the world, many of these hospitals will have to remain for 10 or 15 years, and we must look after the morale and the working conditions of the patients and staff involved with them. We cannot magic them away. However, subject to that. I intend to carry out just the policy the hon. Gentleman adumbrates. But will the hon. Gentleman not give circulation to any idea that the conditions revealed in the report reflect the normal conditions in such hospitals? That would not be true.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has today removed a great cloud from North Lancashire, the terror of the word Whittingham that has been over us for many years, and that we are all most grateful to him for the honest, forthright and radical way in which he has admitted the faults in this service and promised to put them right? Will he accept that we echo very much the views of the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskilll that the announcement of an independent grievance machinery in the form of a commissioner, parliamentary or otherwise, is long overdue, and that he should announce it within the next few weeks if the good work he has done today is not to be dissipated?
Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, but the House should not deceive itself. The sad fact about many of the people in mental-ill-
252
ness and mental-handicap hospitals is that they cannot speak for themselves, and many have been abandoned by their families. Therefore, the adoption by the Government of health commissioner procedure would not be of use to them. The sad revelation from the report is that when the student nurses brought the scandalous conditions to the notice of the nursing administration they were suppressed by that group of nursing administrators.
Mr. Rose: I welcome the open way in which the Minister has dealt with this scandal. This is indeed a change from what often occurs in cases of this kind.
Will the right hon. Gentleman look into some of the general problems in the Manchester area which are faced by the regional hospital board because of. for example, outmoded buildings and facilities, not least in my constituency in relation to Springfield, where the staff and patients alike suffer because of these ancient buildings?
Will the right hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to the problems of inpatients at psychiatric units, in which adolescents and youngsters generally must mix with very old patients? Is he aware that the facilities for autistic children are a real problem in the North-West?
Sir K. Joseph: I appreciate that, but the Manchester Regional Hospital Board is not the only board with old premises. The Hospital Advisory Service is now starting to visit some mental hospitals in the region.
Mr. Crouch: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the need for a much clearer statement from him about the process of change as we try to take down these old psychiatric hospitals? Is he aware of the feeling among the staff in the hospital service, and especially in these hospitals, that they are forgotten? As my right hon. Friend admits, this is having a grave effect on morale. It is clear that we must spend money in the coming 10–15 years to maintain and even improve these establishments while we consider their removal, but may I ask my right hon. Friend to make the point that they are to be removed absolutely clear?
Sir K. Joseph: Certainly, and I would have thought that the hospital staff recognised the increased concern and finances that are now being made available by the Government. One of the satisfactory features of this report is the tribute that is paid to the surprisingly high morale at Whittingham.
Mr. Denis Howell: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have not yet had time to read and digest the report. However, we share the grave concern which has been expressed about the suppression of complaints from members of the junior nursing staff.
The Secretary of State is properly taking action of a severe kind against the group management committee, although it is formed of voluntary people. What action does the report recommend or does he contemplate taking against those with the day-to-day executive responsibility for that situation? Is he aware that it is not good enough to take action only against the voluntary members?
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the day-to-day and month-to-month control exercised by the regional hospital board when things were allowed to get so out of hand? Does he agree that the board's procedures require a fundamental overhaul?
Sir K. Joseph: The principal persons concerned in the nursing administration at the time of the suppression of complaints have left. The regional hospital board, like all other boards, is now much more aware than it used to be of the need for much closer monitoring of these services.
Mr. Will Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that his proposal to call for the resignation, in accordance with Sir Robert Payne's Report, of the members of the Whittingham Hospital Management Committee and its amalgamation with the Preston and Chorley Hospital Management Committee will be generally welcomed? May we have an assurance that in the amalgamated committee no members of the Preston and Chorley H.M.C., who are blameless so far as Whittingham is concerned, will be replaced by former members of the Whittingham H.M.C.?
Sir K. Joseph: I must be careful about this. After all, amalgamations between
254
groups of hospitals are not infrequent. Without reflection on the individual members, it is necessary in the public interest to choose the most suitable persons from among those available. I must, therefore, keep the hands of the board free in this matter while remembering the hon. Gentleman's argument.

MALTA
The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): Mr. Speaker, with permission, I should like to repeat a statement that has been made in another place by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the progress of negotiations for a new defence agreement with the Maltese Government The statement reads as follows:
"The fourth round of talks in Rome on 7th and 8th February was attended by the Prime Minister of Malta, the Foreign Minister of Italy, the Secretary General of N.A.T.O. and myself. Dr. Luns and I confirmed the financial offer of the Alliance and made other proposals relating to our requirements for a defence agreement, with a view to bringing to a conclusion the negotiations which have been in progress since Mr. Mintoff formed a Government in June last year.
In conjunction with our N.A.T.O. partners, we have offered payments at a level of £14 million per annum over seven-and-a-half years. These payments, which would be conditional on the signing of a satisfactory defence agreement, would take effect from 1st October, 1971. In addition, the Maltese Government have been offered bilateral economic support by certain members of the Alliance totalling more than £7 million in all. We would require in return to be able to deploy our forces in Malta, for national and N.A.T.O. defence purposes, and to have satisfactory arrangements for the exclusion or restriction of forces from countries outside N.A.T.O.
During successive rounds of negotiations progress has been made towards defining the terms of an agreement. We have made clear that we would be prepared to release certain land and fixed assets required by the Maltese Government. To enable the Maltese Government to operate Luqa as a civil airport under their own arrangements at the end of a new agreement, we have offered to train and employ at British expense the necessary number of Maltese personnel.
But throughout the period of a new agreement Luqa airport as a whole would continue to be controlled by the R.A.F., who would, as now, give full consideration to the requirements of civil aviation. We have also offered to meet the full net costs of running the Malta Flight Information Region, instead of only doing so in part as at present.
If a satisfactory defence agreement can be reached, the British Government would expect

255
to deploy Forces in Malta at a level that would ensure a substantial contribution to Malta's economy. But I have made clear to Mr. Mintoff that the reduction of Maltese supporting personnel has not kept pace with the rundown of our Forces which began in 1967. We should in any case have had to reduce substantially the resent number of some 6, 000 civilian and uniformed employees. The reduction now required is of the order of 1,600.
To mitigate the effects of the reduction, I have shown readiness to discuss with Mr. Mintoff how the necessary reductions, over and above normal retirements and resignations, might be phased. Special terminal benefits would continue to be made available to those becoming redundant during the rundown period.
In addition, we have offered to employ 200 men at our expense, at a cost of up to £1 million, to carry out the repair of historic buildings for the Maltese Government. We have also offered to bring the take-home pay of Maltese locally-enlisted personnel serving away from Malta up to the level of the equivalent British Servicemen and to carry out an out-of-cycle pay review for all Maltese uniformed personnel.
The Secretary General and I asked the Maltese Government to indicate whether they accepted our proposals as a basis for a new agreement. A reply is awaited. We and our N.A.T.O. Allies still hope that the Maltese Government will state their readiness, on the basis I have already indicated, to conclude an agreement which would satisfy N.A.T.O. and British requirements. In that event, detailed negotiations could be resumed forthwith.
Meanwhile, the withdrawal of British Forces and equipment continues in response to the request made by the Maltese Government at the end of last year. In the absence of new developments, withdrawal will be completed before 31st March. It will accordingly he necessary shortly to issue final discharge notices to the total of about 6,000 Maltese civilian and uniformed personnel we now employ. But it remains the British Government's hope that the Maltese Government will find it possible to accept the N.A.T.O. offer, which we believe is fair."
Dr. David Owen: I am sure the whole House hopes that the friendly relations established in both peace and war between our two countries will be able to continue under the new defence agreement.
Is the Minister aware, however, that we on this side of the House condemn the clumsy and often insensitive way in which, particularly in the early part, the negotiations—[Interruption.]—were conducted? Once again the Prime Minister's obduracy and insensitivity characterised these negotiations. [Interruption.]
256
Hon. Gentlemen opposite must listen to criticism even if they do not like it.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that they must listen to a question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."]
Dr. Owen: Thank you for reminding me, Mr. Speaker.
Is the Minister of State aware that my hon. Friends and I condemn the clumsy way in which these negotiations have been conducted and that we do not like the peremptoriness of the Prime Minister's initial approach to these delicate and difficult negotiations? Will the Minister of State confirm that his statement is not an ultimatum and that he remains flexible on the detail of the negotiations.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the total cost to be paid by the British Government per year under the seven-and-a-half-years of the agreement? Will he also explain what "exclusion" means? Does it cover only the Warsaw Pact countries? For example, will Libyan vessels be allowed to put into Malta? What about bunkering facilities?
In relation to the delicate and difficult question of the 1,600 redundancies, will the British Government be prepared to conduct negotiations with the Maltese trade unions as well as with the Government of Malta?
Finally, many Servicemen and their families in this country have been gravely inconvenienced because of the negotiations and I am sure that all hon. Members in the House will extend sympathy to them and hope that an early settlement can be achieved.
Lord Balniel: Certainly, it is the hope of Her Majesty's Government to continue the friendly relations which have existed, and which we believe do exist, between ourselves and the Maltese people and Government. But I most certainly cannot accept the criticism made by the hon. Gentleman about the way in which negotiations have been conducted. Under the 1964 agreement the outstanding payments would have been of the order of about £3·5 million a year to 1974. In addition, £3 million aid for dockyards would have been paid over the years 1974–75, and 1975–76. In contrast to these figures, the N.A.T.O. offer is worth £14 million a

257
year, and, in addition, £7 million in economic aid would be paid by other members of the N.A.T.O. Alliance under bilateral agreements. The United Kingdom contribution to the N.A.T.O. offer is £5·25 million. This, I should have thought, would generally be regarded as not clumsy negotiating but a very generous offer made for defence facilities.
The hon. Gentleman asked in particular whether we could treat with great care the very sensitive and human problem of the redundancies. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence indicated in another place today that this matter will receive our most close attention and that he will be flexible in this matter.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Without making any comment on the way in which the negotiations have been conducted, may I ask whether the Minister will agree that it is a clear fact that since what he has described as generous proposals have been made this indicates that there has been a grievous failure in the past to recognise what is obviously now admitted to be a justifiable complaint of the Maltese people and that had there been recognition earlier this whole crisis might have been averted? Secondly, may I ask him whether he can say anything at all about the main grounds of disagreement which are left, to which he briefly referred? Finally, have the Maltese Government been asked whether they could postpone their request for withdrawal of British troops pending a final decision on negotiations?
Lord Balniel: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question in that I do not accept that there has been any crisis in what has been a process of negotiation. I do, however, concede that the negotiations have been very prolonged and should be brought to a conclusion as soon as possible.
The hon. Gentleman asked what are the main outstanding problems. They revolve around the financial provision which I have already outlined. Mr. Mintoff and the Maltese Government have changed their stance on this position on a number of occasions. N.A.T.O. has made its offer, and Mr. Mintoff is now consulting with his colleagues, and it would be wrong for me to attempt to anticipate his decision.
258
The other major problem is that referred to by the hon. Gentleman, which is the employment of Maltese personnel. Several concessions have been made by the United Kingdom in the course of the negotiations. The main issues are over the 1,600 Maltese who will be surplus to our requirements, and the rate of pay of locally-enlisted personnel who are serving with the Forces in Malta. Those remain the two main outstanding problems.
Mr. Ramsden: Could my right hon. Friend say another word or two on the £1 million for the repair of historic buildings, which will be welcomed in view of their outstandingly high quality? Would this be extra to the £21 million, and would the work be done by Maltese or British artisans?
Lord Balniel: This is extra money which we are making available for the repair of historic buildings in Malta which we believe will be of assistance in developing their tourist trade. Also, it would involve the employment by us of 200 Maltese men in fulfilment of this task.
Mr. Wallace: Is the Minister aware that there are many in this House and in the country who are most concerned about the welfare and well-being of the people of Malta and the hurt done to the feelings of many individuals in the negotiations, and would he consider slowing down the withdrawal of British Forces in order that negotiations might be favourably concluded? This is a case in which we must remember the past as well as look forward to the future as far as the Maltese are concerned. Britain still owes Malta a debt, and the Government and the nation should recognise this and conduct the negotiations with extreme patience.
Lord Balniel: There is no question of any hurt feelings, and I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, whose interest in the well-being of Malta is well known, that the human problems are of very great importance. The position is that 6,100 Maltese will be made redundant if we withdraw compared with 1,600 if we stay. As to the timing the withdrawal, as I have explained, is being conducted at the request of the Maltese Government and if continued will be concluded by the end of March.
Mr. Sandys: Leaving aside the financial aspect of the negotiations, can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether there is basically agreement already between the two sides with regard to the military facilities which are being asked for and also on the question of the denial of facilities to other countries such as the Soviet Union? Is that more or less agreed, and is the financial question the only one outstanding at present?
Lord Balniel: I am afraid I cannot go as far as I should like in answering what my right hon. Friend suggests. A proposal has been put forward by Her Majesty's Government on behalf of N.A.T.O. It covers various factors, military and financial, and until we receive a reply from the Maltese Government I am afraid I cannot anticipate which parts are acceptable to the Maltese Government.

OWNER OCCUPATION (HELP FOR PRIVATE LANDLORDS' TENANTS TO PURCHASE)
4.10 p.m.
Mr. Frank Allaun: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give tenants of private property owners the right to purchase their dwellings at a reasonable price before the properties are taken out of their present rent control; to encourage local authorities to offer low-deposit or no-deposit mortgages at low interest rates to sitting tenants wishing to buy their homes from their landlords; and to permit local authorities to buy such dwellings at the same price if the tenant declines the opportunity to purchase.
This owner-occupation Bill has two aims, first, to protect private landlords' tenants from the severe rent rises which are about to be imposed on them and secondly to permit them instead to become owner-occupiers by purchasing their homes from their landlords at a reasonable price, I intend to mention first what tenants' prospects are today and secondly how this Bill would work. Unlike most Ten Minute Rule Bills, this Bill has already been drafted and printed, as I have a copy with me. I attempted to introduce such a Bill 12 months ago. Since then the need for it has, regrettably, very greatly increased, thanks to the Government's higher rents Bill.
The private tenants of this country have not yet realised what is in store for them. They are in for the heaviest caning in housing history, even worse than that due to The council tenants. I am talking about 1·3 million families whose rents are still controlled and would remain controlled if it were not for the Housing Finance Bill. This number is the Government's own estimate, and it means approximately 4 million men, women and children who would be affected by the proposals I am now making.
The Government's intention is to remove from their existing rent control all those dwellings at present controlled by the Rent Act, 1968. Their rents will then go through the rent fixing machinery and when this occurs rent increases on average will be 2·6 times the present rent. We know this because that is the figure for tenants who have lost rent control so far. For example, a controlled rent of £3 a week plus rates will go up on

261
average to £7·80 per week plus rates. I could, of course, quote far more serious cases. I had one recently where the increase was five-fold.
As a result of all this, some property companies will have their profits increased by millions of pounds a year. The Freshwater property group, for instance, has made a fortune of more than £9 million out of the Rent Acts, but that is nothing to what we are going to see. The real bonanza is about to begin.
The Labour Government made some serious mistakes in the Housing Act, 1969, but what the Conservative Government are doing is far worse. They propose to end control of all houses, including those without a bathroom, hot water and inside water closet, and those which are so unsound structurally as to be unworthy of having these things introduced. Even tenants of the worst slum housing are going to lose their present rent control, unless they have already been scheduled for slum clearance, and the Government know very well that vast numbers of slums are still awaiting scheduling for clearance. So the Government do not even have the excuse that the higher rents are to induce landlords to install bathrooms.
I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved). He has thought a great deal and for a long time about this problem. Much of the idea and the formula of the Bill came from his brain. I will explain how the Measure would work.
At the point when the house or flat is about to be taken out of rent control, the owner would be required to offer it for sale to the sitting tenant at a reasonable price. If the tenant could not or did not wish to purchase, the local authority would have a similar option at the same price. If, however, the landlord did not wish to take the house out of control and did not intend to raise rent in this way, then he would not he required to offer it for sale.
The question will naturally be asked—what is a reasonable price? The formula is stated in Clause 2 and it should be clear that, as things are today, if rents of houses are sharply increased, as they will be, the price of those houses will also rise steeply. The intention of the Bill, therefore, is to give the land-
262
lord more than he would get if the house were sold today with controlled rent and a sitting tenant, but less than he would be able to charge following decontrol.
A tenant paying a controlled rent of £1·79 plus rates would be living in a house worth £1,400—this has been worked out by professional experts—on this basis of 15 times the net annual controlled rent. On the open market, without a sitting tenant the house would, it has been estimated, be worth £3,600. Thus, under my formula the selling price to the tenant would be £2,133. Some landlords complain that they wish that they could be free of the burden of their properties. Here is a way they can do it and obtain a fair return. They could then invest the sum realised in more lucrative undertakings.
My second main motive for proposing the Bill is that I have long advocated, along with some other hon. Members, the improvement of old houses by the installation of baths, hot water systems and inside water closets. There are generous grants available to property owners to improve their houses. While owner-occupiers have sensibly taken advantage of them, most private landlords have not.
I received yesterday a Written Answer from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to a Question on this matter. It showed in simple terms that for each house improved by landlords, four have been improved by owner-occupiers, local authorities and housing associations. The Bill would therefore greatly increase the number of houses being improved.
Not only would improvements be accelerated, but so also would much-needed repairs. Go down any back street and even from the outside one can tell which house is owner-occupied and which is landlord-owned. One can tell from the way the outside is kept, from the repainting, from the state of the window frames or the new doors and windows which have been put in. Owner-occupiers are keener on maintaining their houses in good repair.
Many landlords say that they cannot afford to do the repairs and improvements and that they cannot afford to pay even their half of the cost, the other half coming from the Government. Very

263
well—if that is so, let the tenant or councils buy them out and do the improvements themselves. Hon. Members opposite profess to be the upholders of the little man, the owner-occupier, and that my hon. Friends are his enemy. This is utterly untrue but if hon. Members opposite claim to be the friends of owner-occupation, let them show it by supporting the Bill.
Briefly, the advantages deriving from my proposals are, first, that it would protect tenants from the savage rent increases which will otherwise be inflicted; secondly, that it would encourage the improvement of great numbers of old but structurally sound houses; and, thirdly, it would be widely and immensely popular.
I suggest that hon. Members opposite will not vote against the Bill, which is aimed at helping owner-occupiers, because that would create a bad impression for them. Instead, I think the Government will try to kill the Bill elsewhere by failing to provide time for it to proceed.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Allaun, Mr. James Wellbeloved, Mr. Julius Silverman, Mr. Reginald Freeson, Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, Mr. Jack Dunnett, Mr. Hugh Jenkins, Mr. George Cunningham, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Stallard, Mr. Norman Atkinson, and Mr. David Stoddart.

OWNER OCCUPATION (HELP FOR PRIVATE LANDLORDS' TENANTS TO PURCHASE)
  OWNER-OCCUPATION (HELP FOR PRIVATE LANDLORDS' TENANTS TO PURCHASE)
  Bill to give tenants of private property owners the right to purchase their dwellings at a reasonable price before the properties are taken out of their present rent control; to encourage local authorities to offer low-deposit or no-deposit mortgages at low interest rates to sitting tenants wishing to buy their homes from their landlords; and to permit local authorities to buy such dwellings at the same price if the tenant declines the opportunity to purchase, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second Time upon Friday, 21st April, and to be printed. [Bill 84.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.20 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon)The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon) rose—
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you a point of order of which I have given you previous notice. It is, I believe, a point of substantial, if not of constitutional, importance, but I shall try to put it to you and to the House as briefly as I possibly can, and I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend for standing for a few moments between him and his defence of his Bill.
  This Bill presents the difficulty that it contains a number of major proposals which impose a burden, a charge, upon the subject. There is, for example, the whole range of the Community tariffs and the consequential provisions. There are the levies under the common agricultural policy. There are the amounts which are raised for the use of the Sugar Board. In addition, there are the provisions which authorise the receipt by Ministers and the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums which have not been raised in taxation.
  All these are matters upon which the House cannot enter unless it has already passed a Ways and Means Resolution appropriate to them respectively. The Government have recognised this is tabling a Ways and Means Resolution. I happen to believe—and perhaps there will later be an opportunity to argue—that that Resolution is in itself defective. But the point that I wish to put to you, Mr. Speaker, is that these provisions which require Ways and Means Resolutions are not incidental, nor subsidiary, nor anciliary. They are the absolute essence of the Bill and the whole Bill, and the accession to the treaties would be quite impossible without them. It would, for example, not be thinkable that we could join the European Economic Community without participating in the Common Agricultural

  265
  Policy and in the Common Tariff of the Community. That being so, I submit to you that this is of its nature a Bill which requires to be founded upon Ways and Means Resolutions and that it is contrary to the practice of this House to enter upon this Bill until the necessary Ways and Means Resolutions have previously been passed.
  There are two further points which I would briefly ask your permission to make. The first is that, of course, a Bill founded upon Ways and Means Resolutions does not exclude money provisions which would not in themselves require such a Resolution. That would be the case in regard to this Bill, but that fact does not alter the necessity in a Bill of which the essence is that it lays charges upon the people of being founded upon Ways and Means Resolutions.
  The second and final point is this. It is part of the rules of the House, of the practice of the House, that a Ways and Means Resolution is required wherever this House delegates the power of taxation. There is admittedly an exception to this rule, and that will be found set out in "Erskine May". It is where this House delegates the power of taxation to an external authority, such as, in former days, a colony. I submit that there is no analogy between that precedent of the House in former times enabling a colony to impose taxation for the purposes of that colony and what is happening in the case of this Bill, which is an unprecedented delegation—indeed, the word "delegation" is too slight; it is a surrender—of the taxing power of this House over the people of this country to an authority outside this country.
  A fortiori, therefore, it appears that this is a Bill, if any Bill is, which needs to be in accordance with our practice and ought to be founded upon previous Ways and Means Resolutions. I submit to you, therefore, that it cannot be entered upon on Second Reading without such Resolutions being passed.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Some of us have been examining this legislation with some care, and some of us have reached the conclusion, although we have had a mountain of
  266
  documents to deal with, that one of the apparently unique features of the Bill is the form of the Money Resolution and the form of the Ways and Means Resolution. Some of us, therefore, have sought, as may appear from the Order Paper, to deal with some of these questions, certainly the question which deals with part of the Money Resolution, by putting down an Amendment of a far-reaching character, which in itself is something of a novelty.
  However, Mr. Speaker, I submit further to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that in many respects, although I have not had the time to consider the proposition which he has made so deeply as maybe you have done, he has made a most formidable case to the House. Therefore, in supporting the submission which he has made to you, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether it is the case that the procedures which will be followed for seeking an opportunity to introduce this legislation into the House will be precisely those which are laid down by other forms of legislation and that, therefore, consideration should be given to the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made? Presumably, if that point were to be accepted, it would be necessary that the House should postpone consideration of the Second Reading of the Bill.
  If that is not possible—because we understand that that would be a procedure which had not normally been followed, at any rate in the House—and if discussion on Second Reading were to be proceeded with today—would it still be in order for you to rule, Mr. Speaker, on the question whether the Ways and Means Resolutions are required, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested they should be required, before we have the Second Reading? Would it be in order for them to be laid—if, in fact, they were laid—before the House votes on the Second Reading of the Bill?
  Certainly we from this side of the House ask that the most serious consideration should be given to these matters, which go to the root of the claims which this House has to exercise its control over the ways in which money is raised and over the way in which money is voted by this House of Commons.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was not, of course, aware of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was going to say in putting his point of order. If I understood him aright, he suggested that because under the proposed Bill we were involving charges being made upon the British people by an authority outside the United Kingdom, this obliged us to consider the Ways and Means Resolution before we went on to the Bill.
  I wonder whether, Mr. Speaker, through you I might ask for a clarification of my right hon. Friend's point and whether he makes any distinction between such charges which would be levied by an authority of which the United Kingdom is a member, as indeed the United Kingdom would be under this Bill, and, on the other hand, an authority of which the United Kingdom would not be a member, which does not in this case apply to this Bill?
  Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) for having given me ample and full notice of his intention to raise this point because it has enabled me to take counsel with those who advise me upon, and are expert in, these matters, who, in fact, have already considered them; it has also enabled me to examine the precedents. I am not ruling in any way today upon the Ways and Means Resolution or the Money Resolution, which will have to be dealt with later, or on any amendment to them. I am simply ruling on the submission of the right hon. Gentleman.
  My Ruling is that the purpose of the Bill as stated in the Explanatory Memorandum is to make the legislative changes which will enable the United Kingdom to comply with the obligations entailed by membership of the Communities. Taxation is not its main purpose, and, therefore, I rule that this is a Bill which does not need to be founded on a Ways and Means Resolution.
  Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for the consideration which you have given to the points that I have put to you. I have no intention of endeavouring to carry on the argument—indeed, it would
  268
  be improper—except to say that this is the first time, but I apprehend it will be by no means the last, in the course of the proceedings on this Bill when you and the House will find themselves faced with unprecedented questions, with propositions to which there is no previous parallel in parliamentary history. I hope that in that light you will do as your predecessors have done and not hesitate to make precedents in an unprecedented situation.
  Mr. Speaker: I will certainly bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. So that we may know exactly what is the Ruling that you have made, could you tell us whether in the examination of the precedents you have quoted there have been no comparable cases in which taxing has played a part similar to the part it plays within this Bill when there has been no Ways and Means Resolution laid beforehand? Are you saying there has been no Bill in which taxation has played a no larger part than in this Bill when the House has insisted that the Ways and Means Resolution should be presented first? If that were your Ruling we would wish to consider further whether there were such precedents. If we were able to submit such precedents to you, would it be open to you to reconsider the matter again because, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has said, although precedents are to be set my first question was whether we are to abide by the rules of the House previously had for considering these matters? We hope that those rules will be accepted until they are changed by order of the House.
  Mr. Speaker: My duty upon receiving notice from the right hon. Gentleman of his point of order was to take advice and consider the precedents. I do not think it is necessary for me to state to the House all the arguments which were considered. All I can say is that I spent a considerable time carefully considering the arguments for and against the precedents. I have ruled, and I am afraid that my Ruling must stand.
  Mr. Rippon: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

  269
  I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her interest and prerogative, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
  I would like to begin by putting the Bill in its proper context representing as it does another stage in the series of parliamentary processes from 1967 onwards leading towards the accession of the United Kingdom to the European Communities.
  The Bill arises from the Treaty of Accession which was signed on 22nd January and which—as the text of the treaty indicates—stems from the application of the United Kingdom; that is, the application made by the last Administration in accordance with the decision of the House on 10th May, 1967.
  On 28th October last year the House approved the decision of principle to join the Communities on the basis of the arrangements negotiated, and on 20th January this year the House approved the procedure to be followed for signature of the treaty and its implementation. I then explained that the signature of the treaty was to be followed by the Government's proposals for legislation.
  This Bill therefore is consequential on the provisions of the treaty and is a necessary preliminary to its subsequent ratification and coming into operation. This debate accordingly takes place against the background of the previous debates and decisions of the House about the principle of membership, the terms of accession and the procedure to be followed.
  My duty today is to explain the Bill, its structure, the principles on which it has been drafted and the effect of its provisions. I think I can satisfy the House that these should occasion no surprise. The nature of the legislation that would be required was stated quite clearly and succinctly both by the right hon. Gentleman, now Leader of the Opposition, in the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, in another place, on 8th May, 1967, before Parliament approved the making of our application. It would, of course, have been an application in bad faith if we did not accept subject to the terms negotiated, that we
  270
  would accept the consequential legislation that would have to be adopted.
  The position was elaborated in Command 3301: "Legal and Constitutional Implications of United Kingdom Membership of the European Communities" presented to Parliament in May, 1967.
  As the then Prime Minister, now Leader of the Opposition, explained:
  "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, existing and future, would derive its force as law in this country from that legislation passed by Parliament."
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to explain that restraints of this kind on our legislative freedom are by no means unprecedented. We had accepted them for example, in accepting the Charter of the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty, in our membership of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and again in E.F.T.A. We needed therefore
  "… to keep this aspect of membership in a due sense of proportion."
  The right hon. Gentleman further pointed out that:
  "It is important to realise that Community law is mainly concerned with industrial and commercial activities, with corporate bodies rather than private individuals. By far the greater part of our domestic law would remain unchanged after entry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1088–9.]
  The House as a whole may therefore be reassured that there is no question of this Bill making a thousand years of British law subservient to the Code Napoléon.
  It is because the main effect of Community law on our existing law is in the realms of commerce, agriculture, customs, restrictive practices and the like that the legislation is much more concise than perhaps any of us originally envisaged. I do not propose to go over again the ground covered in the debate on 20th January on the constitutional proprieties. I then carefully explained that the consequential legislation would be concerned to make the changes in our domestic law needed to comply with our obligations under the treaty.
  There is no necessary correlation between the length and detailed wording of a treaty and the length and detailed wording of the consequential legislation.

  271
  Some treaties call for no change in our domestic law. In other treaties, as in this case, each provision has to be scrutinised to see what change in die law is needed, if any.
  The object of the legislation is, therefore, to make changes which need to be made in our domestic law in order to comply with obligations deriving from membership of the Communities, and also to exercise the rights of membership.
  The provisions setting out these obligations and rights are contained in the treaties and in the secondary instruments of the Communities. They have effect in two quite different ways, and the difference between them is fundamental to the structure and contents of the Bill.
  First, there are the provisions which are to take direct effect in member States, the "directly applicable provisions". Secondly, there are "non-direct" provisions where the obligation rests on the member State to take the necessary action for implementation. I shall deal first with the concept of direct applicability, then with Parliament's rôle in respect of future provisions, and, finally, with the relationship of directly applicable provisions to our Statute Law.
  The concept of direct applicability has been a fundamental feature of the Community treaties from the start, for a very simple reason. A common market depends on the elimination of trade barriers and of distortions of free and equal competition. This necessarily requires rules made centrally and operating in identical terms throughout the area of the market to secure fairness and consistency.
  Directly applicable provisions are to be found both in the treaties themselves and in the regulations of the Communities, particularly in the implementation of the common agricultural policy. The essence of these provisions is that they apply as law within member States without further action on the part of the States themselves. Of themselves, they confer rights and impose obligations to which the national courts have to give effect.
  Clause 2(1), of the Bill therefore embodies in our law this system of directly-applicable Community provisions. In describing its effect, I cannot do better than quote from paragraph 22 of the
  272
  White Paper of May, 1967, Cmnd. 3301, which says:
  "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 those coming into force subsequently as a result of instruments issued by the Community institutions."
  Lord Gardiner, speaking as Lord Chancellor in the last Administration, almost drafted the terms of the necessary provisions when he 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 providing that future instruments similarly took effect as law here."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 8th May, 1967: Vol. 282, c. 1202.]
  This is precisely what Clause 2(1) does. There is, or ought to be, nothing unexpected in it. All who have accepted the principle of Community membership, as the great majority of hon. Members have, irrespective of their views on the terms negotiated, have accepted the need for this provision from the outset of the making of the application. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, as I have already indicated, has never been in any doubt about it.
  When the Labour Government applied for membership, the then Foreign Secretary stated on their behalf that they would seek satisfaction on particular issues, which he listed—the same issues as were the subject of our negotiations in the last 18 months—but that
  "subject to this, Her Majesty's Government accept without reserve all the aims and objectives of the three Treaties and will implement them."
  This was stated in paragraph 19 of Cmnd. 3345.
  Against that background we have to consider a situation in which there are altogether about 1,500 Community instruments published in the consolidated English edition on 13th January which will apply when we join. There are 1,500 and not 2,500 as some people have suggested. That is because in the documents there is a good deal of cross-referencing. About 1,200 of these are

  273
  E.E.C. regulations or E.C.S.C. decisions, which will be directly applicable in this country. The great majority of these 1,200 instruments—that is the exact number the Leader of the Opposition suggested would apply when he spoke in the House on 24th February, 1970, and told us not to be too concerned with the minutiae—actually about 1,000, are agricultural, part and parcel of the common agricultural policy dealing with the detailed operation of the intervention system, the price of rice, and so on. The rest principally affect trade and industry, for example, Customs matters and restrictive trade practices, and also transport. Some concern only the terms of service of community officers and employees and have no practical impact on our law.
  Those directly applicable instruments will have effect subject to the changes and transitional arrangements which have been negotiated for their application to this country.
  In addition there are special arrangements set out in the treaty; for example, the protocols on sugar and New Zealand dairy products will be given effect by Community regulations which will be directly applicable.
  A number of regulations containing directly applicable provisions call for domestic legislation to supplement them and make them workable, and there are provision of this kind in Part II and Schedule 4 of the Bill, to which I shall turn in a moment—for example, the Agricultural Intervention Board.
  Also, where necessary, the Bill repeals or amends existing statute law covering areas in which Community regimes will operate, for example, the repeal of parts of the Import Duties Act. The care that we have taken on this will be apparent from the repeals in Schedule 3 which affect provisions in 29 Acts totalling about 80 pages of the Statute Book. That is dealing with what is happening already, which we knew we should have to face at the end of successful negotiation.
  From now on we shall of course play a full part in the formulation of future directly applicable Community instruments—as of Community instruments which do not have direct effect but require member States to implement them in their own ways.
  274
  Before a Community instrument is made, the consultative processes are thorough, lengthy and largely open. In addition to the full consultations which take place with member Governments through the system of management committees, publicity is given to all proposals of any significance so that those interested may know of them when they are still only proposals. The Economic and Social Committee and the European Parliament on which the United Kingdom will be represented have the right of consultation on all important proposals with powers to suggest amendments and changes which are then taken into account. Ultimately, as we know, the final responsibility for all measures rests between the Commission and the Council of Ministers.
  A United Kingdom Minister will sit on the Council where it is recognised that decisions are not taken which may conflict with the vital national interests of a member State. Where there are conflicting interests to reconcile, the period between initial formulation of a draft proposal by the Commission and its eventual adoption by the Council may be long, stretching even in many cases to years. Formal publicity for draft instruments to be made by the Council is normally secured by their publication in the Official Journal. The Community procedures flow from the provisions of the original treaties, which have been accepted from the outset by successive Governments.
  The Government are deeply concerned that Parliament, as well as United Kingdom Ministers, should play its full part when future Community policies are being formulated, and in particular that Parliament should be informed about and have an opportunity to consider at the formative stage those Community instruments which, when made by the Council, will be binding in this country.
  Her Majesty's Ministers will at all times be responsible to Parliament for the action they take within the Community machine and the House will be able to bring its influence to bear by all the traditional parliamentary procedures, such as Questions, Adjournment debates and Supply Days. No Government would proceed on a matter of major policy in the Council unless they knew that they had the approval of the House.
  Mr. William Baxter: On the question of the role of Parliament, if when the Minister reports back and a debate takes place, the decision of Parliament is against the decision of the Common Market Communities, how would we resolve that situation?
  Mr. Rippon: That would be in breach of the treaty. When the Government come to Parliament with proposals they will have to carry them through the House. But in addition to the traditional procedures there is a need, in the Government's view, for the House to have special arrangements under which it would be apprised of draft regulations and directives before they go to the Council of Ministers for decision.
  Mr. John Biffen Mr. John Biffen (Oswestry) rose—
  Mr. Rippon: I will give way in a moment. It is important that I conclude this part of my speech. This part is new and much of what I have already said is well known and has been said for four or five years. I would like to develop this point first. As I was saying, in addition to the traditional procedures the Government believe that there is a need for the House to have special arrangements, under which it would be apprised of draft regulations and directives before they go to the Council of Ministers for decision. These arrangements should cover the instruments which will be directly applicable and the non-direct instruments.
  In order that the details might be worked out in a way which meets the interests of Parliament as a whole, we propose that an ad hoc committee of both Houses of Parliament should be set up forthwith to consider what would be the most suitable method of ensuring adequate parliamentary scrutiny of these draft regulations and directives. Discussions about the establishment of the committee will start immediately through the usual channels.
  Mr. John P. Mackintosh: Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider putting this matter before the Select Committee on Procedure, which considered taking up this matter at the beginning and postponed it until events had taken their course? This is a matter which
  276
  the Committee had in mind as falling within its ambit.
  Mr. Rippon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The proposed committee I have been dealing with will be concerned with the arrangements needed at the stage when a Community instrument is in draft. The arrangements which should be made for parliamentary scrutiny and control of any subsequent subordinate legislation in this country will come within the review of delegated legislation which is at present being conducted by the Joint Select Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Brooke. I hope that by the combination of those procedures we can devise arrangements which will be satisfactory to the House as a whole and in the interests of all of us.
  Mr. Peter Shore: Since this matter is of such importance to the House, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that this should have been proposed some time ago. Now that it has been proposed, is it not sensible that we should have the report of that ad hoc committee before we proceed any further with the Bill?
  Mr. Rippon: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that is a ridiculous suggestion. We have proceeded with this matter since 1967 stage by stage in an orderly way and there will be plenty of time in the course of the proceedings for the committee to consider this matter. We have interim arrangements with the Community up to the date of our full entry into the Community on 1st January. 1973. Thereafter these procedures will have to apply.
  Sir Elwyn Jones: Is it not the case that there is provision in the ratification laws in Germany and Holland for supervision of this kind of machinery by the Parliaments of those countries to be made a statutory duty? Why is it that those provisions are not contained in the Bill?
  Mr. Rippon: There is a great deal of difference between the parliamentary arrangements of all the various countries. It is not always appreciated by right hon. and hon. Members opposite how different are the arrangements which Parliaments retain within the Community to

  277
  conduct their own affairs. Although the procedures of other Parliaments are of interest, they are not directly applicable to us.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: Would the special arrangements announced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman apply to Community instruments destined to go not merely before the Council but before the Commission? Do they apply in both cases?
  Mr. Rippon: The committee could consider the matter widely, but I have suggested that the procedure should enable Parliament to be able to consider in the most appropriate way any decision or directive, whether directly applicable or non-directly applicable, which might affect this country. I think this takes it as wide as the right hon. Gentleman would wish.
  Mr. Jay: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman must have considered this matter. Therefore, will he answer my question?
  Mr. Rippon: I do not want to prejudge what the ad hoc committee may say about particular matters. What I have proposed is an ad hoc committee to consider arrangements which would ensure satisfactory consideration by the House of matters in draft as proposals before binding decisions can be taken by the Commission or the Council of Ministers.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: This is an important matter and will affect the views of many of us. If the ad hoc committee can work on the lines my right hon. and learned Friend has in mind, it is not a fact that the Minister would have the power to use the veto on an instrument as distinct from making an expression of policy? In other words, would there be a Ministerial power of veto or merely a discussion with no power at the end of it?
  Mr. Rippon: If it is a matter regarding the price of rice, it might not be fundamental and it might be difficult to insist that it was vital to the national interest. But assuming that a question arose on which there had been strong feelings in this House, prima facie it would be a matter in the national interest and a British Minister would have power to insist in the Council of
  278
  Ministers that it was a matter of major national importance which required a unanimous decision and that he could not be part of that unanimous decision.
  Before I leave the directly applicable Community provisions, I should like to mention one further feature of this concept. In order to ensure impartial administration and interpretation, it is inherent in the concept that in the last resort a single authority should determine questions about the interpretation and validity of the provisions. This is a function of the European Court, in respect of Community provisions, whether directly applicable or not.
  Clause 3 subsection (1) provides for the acceptance of the jurisprudence of the European Court. As the 1967 White Paper (Cmnd. 3301) recognises, the directly applicable provisions of the Community are designed to take precedence over the domestic law of member States, in the sense that they prevail in cases of conflict.
  By accepting the directly applicable law in Clause 2(1) and accepting the jurisprudence of the European Court in Clause 3(1) the Bill provides the necessary precedence. In relation to statute law, this means that the directly applicable provisions ought to prevail over future Acts of Parliament in so far as they might be inconsistent with them. In practice, this means that—again quoting the Leader of the Opposition—
  "It would be implicit in our acceptance of the Treaties that the United Kingdom would, in future, refrain from enacting legisation inconsistent with Community law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1089.]
  Clause 2(4) accordingly provides that present and future enactments shall be construed and have effect subject to Clause 2.
  I do not want to pretend that this process of Community law-making involves no constitutional innovation whatever. [Interruption.] It does, but only to the extent clearly set out in the 1967 White Paper "Legal and Constitutional Implications of United Kingdom Membership of the European Communities".
  Of course nothing in this Bill abridges the ultimate sovereignty of Parliament. As Lord Gardiner said in another place when he was Lord Chancellor,
  "The United Kingdom legislation would be an exercise of Parliamentary sovereignty

  279
  and Community law existing and future would derive its force as law in this country from it. The Community law so applied would override our national law so far as it was inconsistent with it. Under the British constitutional doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty no Parliament can preclude its successors from changing the law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 8th May, 1967; Vol. 282; c. 1202.]
  As Lord Gardiner said, it is unlikely that Parliament in these circumstances would wish to proceed with matters inconsistent with treaty obligations.
  I now turn to the implementation of those treaty provisions and Community instruments which do not have direct applicability and therefore require action by member States. I shall first explain why certain categories do not require legislation in this Bill, secondly how the Bill deals with other provisions and finally the need for the powers in Clause 2(2) to make subordinate legislation.
  I include in this category the domestic law which I mentioned earlier as sometimes being needed to supplement a directly applicable provision in order to make it operate in the manner most suitable for us; for example, to provide the machinery to conduct support-buying under the common agricultural policy. In the area of non-direct provisions, the Bill can deal expressly only with existing Community provisions, and not all of those require a change in our law; for example, the directives on capital movements can be implemented by action under the Exchange Control Act, 1947.
  Secondly, some Community provisions, particularly in the treaties, call for no change in domestic law at all because they operate purely at the international level; for example, the provisions about the composition of Community institutions.
  Thirdly some obligations can be met by using existing powers to make subordinate legislation which would be laid before Parliament in the ordinary course; for example, the provisions in the treaty dealing with fishing rights will be given effect by statutory instrument under existing legislation. It will be necessary to make an order under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, to extend the scope of that Act to nationals of member States in this country. Some 15 or so instruments will be needed this year in this category.
  280
  Fourthly there is the special case of value added tax which is to be embodied in separate provisions in the forthcoming Finance Bill.
  Fifthly there are the Community requirements, for which we have negotiated delays so that they will not operate until sometime after accession.
  Express legislation on this sort of provision at this stage is not necessary or perhaps desirable, because in some cases the Community policy might change before the end of our transitional period or there might be changes in our related domestic arrangements which called for a wider approach. I include in this category the implementation of Community regulations about the age of road transport goods drivers, where the Community regulations are not intended to operate for domestic journeys until 1976, and we should need to fit these changes in with the issuing of drivers' licences for life which would itself require domestic legislation.
  For the remaining obligations, the Bill has made the necessary provisions. In Part I, Clause 2(3), will be found the financial provisions. Under these provisions the contributions to the Community budget and all expenditure arising from the treaties or the Bill will be met. Subsection (3) distinguishes the payments required to meet our Community obligations by making these a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund, thereby recognising the special nature of the commitment to make these payments. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, will have more to say about that if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye later tonight.
  The other provisions to implement obligations are contained in Part II of the Bill and in Schedules 3 and 4, and the Bill has followed normal practice in the nature of the provisions expressly laid before the House.
  Clause 9, for example, deals with the changes required in company law in order to conform with an existing Community directive, and incidentally some of these changes are in line with the recommendations of the Jenkins Committee; for example, the provisions for ultra vires contracts and pre-incorporation contracts. Following the practice of company law legislation, all the necessary details, which are numerous although sometimes minor, are included in the Clause.

  281
  Schedule 4 contains a number of amendments to existing statutory codes, chiefly of a regulatory character in agriculture or horticulture; for example, concerned with the control of potato wart disease or the grading of fruit and vegetables. In these cases the Bill follows existing practice in the matters left to subordinate legislation; for example, in the Food and Drugs Act.
  In general the Bill seeks to meet Community obligations by modifying or extending an existing regulatory code, rather than by laying down a separate set of provisions. In this way, those affected by the obligations will find that they are working within the framework of a familiar statutory code, containing the enforcement machinery and other ancillary provisions to which they are accustomed.
  We anticipate that some 25 instruments will be made in 1972 under powers conferred or amended by Part II and Schedule 4; for example, to permit deferred payment of import duties, which might be quite popular.
  Some people have thought it somewhat incongruous that a Bill of this importance should contain express and detailed provisions about the letterheads used by business firms, but the Government have thought it right to deal expressly and comprehensively in the Bill with the matters requiring legislation at or shortly after accession and involving specific amendments of existing Acts of Parliament. That is the principle on which Part II and Schedules 3 and 4 have been constructed.
  Finally, there remains a miscellany of minor matters which are not included in the Bill but for which some legal provision is needed by accession or shortly afterwards. The provisions are generally in new fields for legislation and regulate such minor and, I hope, uncontroversial matters as textile appellations and the markings on wood in the rough. These matters are appropriate for subordinate legislation. It is necessary to take a general power in order to deal with them, as the theme which unites them is that they are needed in order to implement Community obligations or to exercise the rights of membership.
  A general power to make subordinate legislation for these purposes is contained in Clause 2(2) in terms of the obligations
  282
  and rights under the treaties as defined in Clause 1. This was contemplated by the 1967 White Paper on legal and constitutional implications which referred to
  "delegated legislation issued under Parliamentary authority which could cover future as well as present Community instruments."
  I fully appreciate the concern of the House at any new general power to make subordinate legislation, but I should like to reassure hon. Members about the prospect. On the basis of existing Community instruments, we foresee a need for not more than four instruments under Clause 2(2) in 1972 and about another 12 in 1973. This compares with an annual number of about 1,000 general Statutory Instruments on all matters laid before Parliament.
  As for the future, our obligations will result in a continuing need to change the law to comply with non-direct provisions, and to supplement directly applicable provisions, and it is not possible in advance to specify the subjects which will have to be covered. In particular, Article 100 of the E.E.C. Treaty contains a general power for the Council to issue directives for the approximation of laws directly affecting the establishment or functioning of the Common Market. My earlier examples of instruments about wood in the rough and textile appellations come from directives under this Article.
  There will be other obligations to be met of varying degrees of importance. The 13 years' backlog of Community instruments which the Bill deals with expressly will be matched by a continuing need to respond to non-direct provisions and, just as we are taking the existing obligations and are dealing with them in the various ways open to us—administrative action, the use of existing powers, separate legislation, express provisions and subordinate legislation under the Bill—so these different approaches will be used to meet future obligations.
  As I have said, the Bill deals comprehensively with changes in the law needed now which require amendment by Act of Parliament. In future it will be possible to make many changes or to anticipate them in the ordinary programme of departmental legislation, for the same reasons that the Government decided that provisions now in Part II

  283
  of the Bill ought to be dealt with there expressly rather than Clause 2(2).
  Sir Elwyn Jones: On subordinate legislation, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain Clause 2(4), which I confess that I and other lawyers whom I have consulted find totally incomprehensible? Is it a rule of construction, or is it a piece of substantive law and, if so, what is its effect?
  Mr. Rippon: I think that is more a Committee point, is it not? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at it carefully he will see that Clause 2(4) provides:
  "The provision that may be made under subsection (2) above includes, subject to Schedule 2 to this Act, any such provision (of any such extent) as might be made by Act of Parliament"—
  then there is a break—
  "and any enactment passed or to be passed, other than one contained in this Part of this Act, shall be construed and have effect subject to the foregoing provisions of this section; but"—
  this is important—
  "except as may be provided by any Act passed after this Act, Schedule 2 shall have effect in connection with the powers conferred by this and the following sections of this Act to make Orders in Council and regulations."
  This reinforces the view that Community law takes precedence under Clause 2(1). I think that that is clear enough.
  Mr. Powell: Still on that subsection, which raises a matter of principle, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to refer to the words,
  "except as may be provided by any Act passed after this Act"?
  Why is there any doubt that has to be removed by those words that Parliament can subsequently alter what it has already passed?
  Mr. Rippon: I will deal with that particular point in a moment. We have to make some provision of that kind. That may be a point more readily gone into in Committee.
  The Government hope that Part II and Schedules 3 and 4 will commend themselves to the House on the basis which 1 have set out and as an earnest of their intention that the use of Clause 2(2) will continue to be confined to appropriate
  284
  cases. But the volume and miscellaneous character of Community provisions make it necessary to use the general power in Clause 2(2) for a variety of minor matters. Because of the complexity of the possibilities of the future we have had to provide in Clause 2(4) that instruments under Clause 2 may make any provision which might be made by Act of Parliament and that they can therefore amend statutory provisions.
  Mr. Shore: Gobbledygook.
  Mr. Rippon: It is necessary to provide under Clause 2(4) that instruments under Clause 2 may make any provision which might be made by Act of Parliament and that they can therefore amend statutory provisions. This arises because of the need to make perhaps excessive provision for matters which may arise in future which require that kind of action. What I am trying to say is that, as an earnest of the way in which we think any Government would approach these matters, we have put in express statutory provisions for major amendments now required, and we have strictly limited the use of Clause 2(2) by the overriding restrictions in Schedule 2.
  For instance, paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 specifically prohibits the use of Clause 2(2), which would include Clause 2(4), to impose or increase taxation, to legislate retrospectively, to delegate Clause 2(2) powers any further, or to create an offence carrying substantial penalties. In addition, there is the parliamentary procedure prescribed in paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether this part, which he has elaborated partly in response to the question by his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), was covered in the White Paper of 1967, to which he has made such frequent reference? In which paragraph was this matter spelt out?
  Mr. Rippon: I cannot say in which paragraph it was spelt out, but the White Paper dealt with the whole general problem of how to deal with existing and future laws. I appreciate that this is a complex piece of drafting. It has had to be put in for the reasons which I have given. It is impossible to anticipate exactly what requirements we will

  285
  agree in future, what may be the exact form of regulation or directive, and in what way Parliament will wish to deal with it. Therefore, it may be appropriate on some occasion to use that power, in effect, to amend an Act of Parliament.
  I am saying that, as an earnest of the Government's intentions, we have taken care to bring before the House the major matters which require amendment in an Act of Parliament. We have also carefully limited the circumstances in which in any event the powers contained in Clause 2(2) could be used. I do not know that I can go any further now. If the hon. Gentleman reads what I have said, he will realise that it is perfectly clear. As I conceive it, the power afforded by Clause 2(4) would be used only in exceptional circumstances and subject to the other overriding restrictions in Schedule 2, plus the fact that in an Act of Parliament we have dealt with all the major matters.
  Mr. Albert Booth: In order to help the House, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether what he has just explained regarding the effect of Clause 2(2) and (4) means that if the Bill becomes an Act delegated legislation may be used to amend primary legislation? If so, why is there no provision in the Bill whereby this delegated legislation, which will amend primary legislation, is not subject to amendment and debate, as is other primary legislation?
  Mr. Rippon: We are dealing with the future. In certain circumstances, subject to the provisions of the Schedule, Clause 2(4) expressly limits the power to deal with these matters in the four instances which I have set out. In addition, we have the parliamentary procedure prescribed in paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2.
  As to the use here of the affirmative or negative procedure, the Bill is drafted to ensure flexibility, pending the report of the Joint Committee of both Houses which is at present considering the whole question of the procedures and practices by which the control of Parliament over delegated legislation is exercised and how they might be improved.
  Sir Elwyn Jones: Does the use of the word "flexibility" mean that it is left
  286
  to the discretion of the Minister whether the subordinate legislation is to be dealt with by the affirmative or the negative procedure, or might it be required to be laid and therefore merely brought to the attention of the House?
  Mr. Rippon: The flexibility in the Bill, as drafted, is so that we may have the opportunity to consider the matter in connection with the report of the Joint Committee of both Houses which is at present considering the whole question of the procedures and practices by which the control of Parliament over delegated legislation is exercised and how they might be improved. I appreciate that we shall have to go in some detail, which is not perhaps wholly appropriate on Second Reading, into how these matters should operate. I have tried to explain as clearly as I can the extent to which we have had to make provision in the Bill for unforeseen future circumstances. I have no doubt that the Joint Committee will look specifically at the arrangements for the scrutiny of subordinate legislation arising from our obligations as members of the Communities.
  In describing the structure and contents of the Bill I have necessarily been concerned primarily with Community obligations and with continuing obligations, because it is obligations which require a change in the law. But in ex-planning the nature of these obligations and the way that the Bill deals with them I have throughout been conscious that we are shouldering these obligations as a consequence of membership in the interests of the security and prosperity of our people.
  I hope that when discussing the Bill, particularly at this stage, we shall not forget that its ultimate purpose is to enable us to play our proper part in the construction of a united Europe as a full member of the European Communities. We know that there are many issues which genuinely divide this House, but most of us know in our hearts that the principle and purpose of the Bill is not one of them.
  5.19 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Shore: I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will realise that he has addressed that last shaft to the wrong

  287
  target. If I may begin with what he has said, it was very odd that he should leave his very few remarks about the ultimate purpose of the whole thing right to the end of his speech, when, of course, it should provide—as it certainly will in my case—at least some introduction to remarks about the Bill and the treaties that it seeks to enact.
  Second, the right hon. and learned Gentleman went out of his way to be as disarming as he knows how to be. Perhaps in his efforts to be disarming he was at times disingenuous, but he also managed to reveal to us, by the very proposal that there should now be set up a new ad hoc Joint Select Committee, how little thought the Government have given to the serious matters which are under discussion here. I say this not from the position that I take on these matters, because I took a very different position about the merits and desirability of entering the Community, but the House owes it to itself, its traditions and its history to make the most careful and rigorous examination of what is involved in a close relationship with the European Communities and the institutions that they have set up.
  It is a great pity that this matter has not been opened up before. It is not good enough to say that there was a White Paper in 1967. Yes, there was, and, of course, that possibility of negotiation was aborted in the autumn of that year, and the issue did not reappear on the political scene until the beginning of 1970. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues have now had over 18 months of very serious, in their case obviously most devoted, effort to enter the Common Market, yet they have only now begun seriously to consider this most important of all the issues which in the end are involved—the effect upon the Parliament and democracy of this country.
  Very big issues are indeed involved. I do not think that the Minister should have left right until the end of his speech some mention at least of the fact that what we are talking about is a Bill which will so greatly change many of the matters which affect the lives of people in this country and the prospects for our nation. It will certainly affect the prosperity of the nation. It will affect our living
  288
  standards, our chances of employment, as well as the future of great industries and many regions of this country. It will also affect, as we have just heard, the democracy of the country, the extent to which we continue to rule ourselves, and our freedom to use the State power for those purposes that we think right.
  Last, and by no means least—I am speaking, as one inevitably must on a Bill of this kind, in broad terms—it will affect our relationships with other countries, in particular whether we should forge a new and special relationship—that is what it is: a community—with the neighbouring countries of Western Europe, rather than maintain the relationships and associations in the Commonwealth, E.F.T.A. and elsewhere which we have enjoyed for so long and which we enjoy today.
  These are all matters, very big matters, with which we have to deal in considering this Bill and the vast amount of subordinate matter which lies beneath it. The Minister said that the Bill was concise. Of course it is, because so much of what it will do is no part of the Bill.
  There is nothing concise about those volumes with which on previous occasions hon. Members have staggered into the Chamber. The Community has produced 43 volumes of regulations and law over the past 12 years. Also, there is nothing concise about the treaties which the Communities have themselves entered into with one another and with other agencies and which we were privileged to see just a week ago.
  Therefore, I have to begin by trying to clear the mind of the House on what we are discussing. First, the Bill is about accession not just to the Treaty of Rome, the Treaty of Paris, the Euratom Treaty—the major founding treaties of the Communities. Nor, of course, are we concerned with accession simply to the treaties which are listed in Schedule 1. What we are acceding to is that very large number of additional treaties to which I have referred.
  I hope that that is the complete number. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can help me on this. I believe that we are acceding to the 10 volumes of additional treaties and sub-treaties which were published last week, along with the original listed treaties. That point is at least established.

  289
  The extent, the manner, the timetable, of our accession to these treaties is, of course, set out in the two volumes of the Treaty of Accession. Here, among other things, will be found the terms which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Government have negotiated. These matters, which the Government would wish us not to see or speak of, are to be found there—buried in a kind of shallow grave of protocols and annexes, but for all that, one can discover them there.
  Part of our task in this debate and others will be to disinter these bodies and bring them before the gaze of the House. I will not say much now about what is there, but I should draw attention to at least one or two matters on which I may invite the Minister's comment—and if not his, that of his right hon. Friends.
  First, the House will be aware that there has been a crucial change in the wording of the New Zealand Protocol which is attached to the Treaty of Accession, a change of wording which, according to Mr. Marshall—he used these words in the New Zealand House of Commons—would have been a breach of faith or a betrayal if we had used them. But we have, and what we want to know is what happened, and why.
  Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) raised this matter some time ago in the House. I explained to him that there was a misapprehension about this. There is no breach of faith of the sort that Mr. Marshall feared. That would have arisen if the Community had attempted to reinsert in the protocol the provision of unanimity on the principle of continuity. They have not tried to do that. The only question which arises is that it is made clear in the protocol that voting would be unanimous on the form of the continuing arrangements, as I explained to the House on 24th June.
  Mr. Shore: I will come in a moment to the further point of how the alleged veto works. We will rest for the moment on that point.
  Then, there is the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. What happened, amid all these declarations, unilateral and multilateral, among all the protocols and annexes which litter these documents,
  290
  to the Lancaster House communiqué, which was the one serious statement addressed by this Government to the Commonwealth sugar producers which gave them some assurance for the future other than the rather nebulous aura à coeur" which is what the Community itself was prepared verbally to offer? I hope that, at some stage, we shall have the answer to that.
  Among these matters, some things are missing. There is no mention in the treaties of the very large contribution which this country will have to make in the form of its "membership fee". The only mention of sums of money is in the Bill itself, in the Financial Memorandum, where, of course, the figures stop discreetly at the net £200 million in 1977. The most serious matters of all, in a sense—they are very serious—the assessment and the judgment about how all this would affect our future prosperity, are not mentioned. Fortunately for the Government, they do not have to mention them either in a treaty or, indeed, in a Bill of this kind. But the House must be aware that these effects will be very serious.
  What inevitably will follow from the new systems of taxation which are being proposed and what will happen as a result of the very large and additional burdens on our balance of payments is that we shall endanger the possibilities of our continuing growth and prosperity in the years ahead. It will also have very retrograde effects upon the distribution of income in this country, particularly as it affects people with small incomes or below average earnings.
  There is serious and genuine concern. Heavens!—there should be, with one million unemployed today and with the British economy, in comparison with the economies of the Six, having shown a considerable difficulty in achieving a satisfactory rate of growth now over a number of years. There is real worry that in relation to this large and more dynamic market in Western Europe Britain could become as Northrn Ireland has been to the United Kingdom. But there is this very important difference: whereas we today recycle very large sums of money towards Ulster and towards our other development areas in order to attempt to offset the very serious effects of the compulsive pull of stronger parts of our country, the South-East and the Midlands

  291
  —it was the Midlands, perhaps I should say—and in order to counteract these things we pump large sums of money into the weaker areas. But in relation to the Common Market, what is being proposed is the very opposite. It is that we who are in relation to the Six, I regret to say, economically weak, certainly in terms of our growth, should make a substantial contribution across the balance of payments to their economies, without limit in time or in amount under the formulae of the Communities' taxation that have been agreed. So one cannot help but have the most serious worry and concern about this.
  I regret very much that the right hon. and learned Gentleman rejected the very serious proposal that there should be a Select Committee on the terms of entry, which would have allowed us to explore these matters as they deserve to be explored.
  Before I leave the question of the terms of entry buried or missing in the Treaty of Accession I return to the point about the veto, on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I have faced each other at 4 o'clock in the morning and on another occasion at 5 o'clock in the afternoon and are facing each other today for the third time. Throughout our debates, as he will know, it has been an important part of the Government's case that they have a fall-back position, that we need not worry too much about a particular set of inadequate terms in the negotiations because when and if we become a member and when particular matters needed to be renegotiated we should be able to get our way by insisting that the matter in question was of vital national interest to us and the other members would then have to accept our view.
  I am sure that that rings a bell with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, because he used precisely this point—incorrectly, I think—when trying to defend himself against charges that membership would damage our regional policies. It would be wrong to single out the right hon. and learned Gentleman because other Ministers have made precisely the same point. I do not believe this claim. I want to get this finally clear today. The fact is that in the matters with which we are all familiar, whether they be fishing, Com-
  292
  monwealth sugar, New Zealand butter, or any of the other matters, the Government have negotiated a time-limited waiver from the Community rules. The House would probably agree with that description. When the time expires, those waivers can be extended only if the community agrees to it. All that we can say is that it is extremely unlikely that we should be able to get more than a small part of what we want when the agreements for Commonwealth sugar, New Zealand butter and fisheries come up for renewal, respectively, in 1974, 1977 and 1982. Why we should find it difficult to persuade the majority or the whole of the Community to support us in these matters is obvious: it is because our interests in these areas clash very much with theirs.
  One area of the negotiations in which Ministers have not claimed that there will be either a review in the future or a British veto is, significantly, the area in which we can expect to incur the greatest damage to ourselves. I refer to the cash contribution we shall have to make to the Community under the "own resources" rule. Every other area of negotiation has been referred to during previous debates in relation to a national interest veto, but not this one. The omission is significant.
  In earlier debates all that Ministers could say about it was that if
  "unacceptable situations arise, the very survival of the Community would demand that the institutions find an equitable solution."
  Perhaps it is not surprising that this flabby piece of prose is not reprinted in the Treaty of Accession. But the Prime Minister knows, as President Pompidou knows, that there is no possibility of either a renegotiation or a veto here in this matter. Probably no right hon. or hon. Gentleman will rise to challenge me about that.
  All that the Prime Minister can offer the House, on this matter, is what he said on 21st July:
  "The fundamental question for the House is really this: do we believe that the Community is now, aid will be when we are in it, the kind of body that will approach these matters"—
  that is, Britain's debt to it and our continued contribution—
  "in a positive, constructive and reasonable manner?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1971 Vol. 821, c 1465.]

  293
  I should have required a much stronger guarantee than that. I see nothing in the course of the negotiations, or the previous negotiations, that would permit me in clear conscience to put my country's fate and the vast sum of money that will be extracted from it year by year in such pawn and at such risk.
  One last point about the veto is that, while it does not and cannot apply to the agreements and arrangements which have been already made by the Community and which the present Government have so disastrously accepted, none of the matters which I have mentioned, which have been already agreed by the Community, is subject to any British veto. The veto can be used—this is the source of confusion—on future Community policy specifically where the Rome Treaty allows it, when it says that decisions will be taken unanimously, but, less clearly, if major nations assert the need for unanimity. Whereas the treaty says that there should be qualified majority voting, President Pompidou has made it clear that on future Community policy he will insist on unanimous decisions where the treaty talks about qualified majority voting on future policy. The Prime Minister at his meeting at the Elysée, as we all know, has stated his full concurrence with the President of France.
  But there is no joy for us in this, for while the Common Market agricultural policy and its financing impose disastrous burdens on us, and cannot be vetoed by us—the policy can be changed only by unanimous agreement or by heavily qualified majority voting—the only hope of mitigation of these burdens for us lies in the development of common industrial and regional policies which would reverse the cash flow in our favour. Yet it is precisely on those policies that the President of France will be free to exercise his veto. It is of great concern and potential damage to this country that there is no British veto of what has been agreed, and for the past 13 years what has been agreed in the Community is basically the self-interest of France. There is a power of veto on those matters which might conceivably be turned to the interests of this country. I hope that someone on the Government Front Bench will give a serious reply to this matter of the veto.
  Sir Robert Cary: How can we possibly insist upon exercising a veto in a club to which we did not previously belong?
  Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman has made the whole point for me, because it is precisely the negotiations about the terms of entry that decide how far what has already happened in the past 13 years will be imposed upon us. The awful truth about the whole negotiations is that every bit of what has happened has been accepted. Every last regulation has been accepted, not in an honest negotiation, putting our interests in one balance and the Community's in another, but imposed upon us. We have been forced to take it or leave it. Unhappily, we have taken it.
  Mr. Rippon: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that all his speech so far is a reiteration of what some other right hon. and hon. Members opposite said during the debate which ended on 28th October, when there was a decisive majority in favour of entry into the Community on the terms negotiated?
  Mr. Shore: I do not agree at all. To begin with, I do not think that the matter has been decided. The vote of 28th October was taken long before the negotiations were over, long before the 43 volumes were published and the other 10 volumes were published here last week, long before we saw the Treaties of Accession. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to think up something better than that.
  I turn now to the Bill itself. It does not simply accede to all those treaties in the manner I have described and the way the Treaties of Accession lay down. It also, as Clause 2, with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman dealt at great length, makes abundantly clear, accepts
  "rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions"
  arising out of our membership. Clause 2 takes only two pages, and its related Schedule one page more. But it mounts a most serious attack on the power of Parliament, on our democracy and on the freedom of action of any Government in this country. It makes clear, first, that we accept as the law of the land all those rules and regulations that have been churned out during the past 13 years,

  295
  without further enactment and only with such discussion as we can maintain during the passage of the Bill. About 1,500 regulations was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's figure. These are now to become law and enforced in our courts.
  The Clause also makes clear in subsection (1) that further Community laws can and will be made without approval by Parliament, indeed, without reference to it, unless the proposals the right hon. and learned Gentleman has suddenly introduced today can intervene at this point. So, over a wide area of our affairs Parliament is inevitably doomed to become a spectator of legislative events. Unless the Select Committee can put before us new proposals, we shall be in the position of dealing with Community regulations which Parliament might be able to see, and perhaps even in the end discuss, but which it would be powerless to alter.
  As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made clear, our courts of law will be brought within the Community system, and the final arbiter of all the matters covered by the treaty will be the European Court.
  I knew what the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say about all that. He said that the White Paper of 1967 described this situation. It did, but it certainly did not use that as an argument to commend or recommend entry to the House. The situation was what always made it extremely difficult to accept what was involved, and for most hon. Members the arrangements are bearable only if, first, the area in which such powers operate is most narrowly confined, and, secondly, the overall arrangements for entry are clearly to the advantage of this country. Neither of those conditions has been met.
  The fact is that the area of Community law-making has widened greatly in the past five years. If we had joined in 1967, not only was the transitional period, when so much was still fluid, still to be concluded, but many of the matters that under the treaty then required unanimity to take effect might never have been agreed.
  But that is not all. In 1970—and this relates very much to Clause 2(3)—the Community took what many regard as the most important step in its history.
  296
  The member States agreed that the Community itself should have the power of taxation, that it should have its own resources. That is to be found in the separate Treaty of Luxembourg, of April, 1970.
  It is a consequence of that decision that the power of taxation, the most jealously guarded of all the powers of Parliament, is in part to be handed over to the Community, which will be able to impose customs duties, agricultural levies and up to a 1 per cent. value-added tax on the people of this country. Along with its power to tax there will go the power to determine expenditure. These matters will be decided not as they have been in the past by the British Parliament but by the Council of Ministers and the Commission.
  Mr. Sandys Mr. Sandys (Streatham) rose—
  Mr. Shore: I should like to make one point before I give way. There is nothing in the 1967 White Paper about the Community being given the power of taxation. There was talk about the possibility of harmonising certain taxes where they distorted competition, but while the idea that the Community should emerge as a tax power in its own right may have been in the womb of the Community it certainly was not born, and there was no mention or discussion of it in the White Paper concerned.
  Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Gentleman has always suggested that the 1967 White Paper has somehow been overtaken by events. He and the House should know that the then Prime Minister said on 17th February, 1970, that the general assessment in the White Paper still held good.
  Mr. Shore: Which White Paper?
  Mr. Rippon: The 1967 White Paper.
  Mr. Shore: That will not do. Despite his great desire to score points, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must take this matter seriously. Things have changed. A great event occurred in the Community in 1970. I recognise that, and I am not a friend of it. In 1970 it became a great new body because it acquired this power of taxation. Why should the right hon. and learned Gentleman try to deny this or pretend that everything is as it was in 1967?
  Mr. Rippon: I am not denying that things changed in 1970 but only that in February the then Government, knowing of the changes that were to take place, reaffirmed that their position was unchanged.
  Mr. Shore: I know a bit more about that than does the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I assure him that he is wrong. I could take him detail by detail through the 1970 White Paper and the debate of that year, but I will not weary the House.
  In the light of what I have said, it is not only Clause 2(1), (2) and (3) of the Bill that we must consider. I cannot see how the Government can maintain that there will be, in the words of their White Paper, no loss of "essential national sovereignty." I do not understand how the right hon. and learned Gentleman only a few days ago could say in his Press Gallery speech, of which I have a copy:
  "For Parliament, far from losing influence, it must gain in stature by Community membership."
  It may be the devout wish of us all that that should be so, but on the face of it it is so in conflict with reality and the facts that it is taking a liberty with language.
  Another important matter is involved in the loss of decision-making by this Parliament, or in the extent to which our decision-making processes will be curtailed in relation to the Community. The proposal before us—I say this perhaps more to some of my hon. Friends than to hon. Gentlemen opposite—is not to transfer power from our Parliament and democracy—operating, as it must, on the national level—to a new Parliament and democracy of equal weight or stature in Europe.
  There is surely one thing about which we can agree; namely, that of all the institutions of the Community, the weakest is the European Assembly. It has no power, it is not directly elected, it seldom meets and it is only a talking shop. I recall the words of Professor Dahrendorf a few months ago. He wrote:
  "A democrat can only feel shame when he sees adult and, in their own countries, properly elected Members of Parliament playing out the farce that they have to perform ten times a year for a week at a time, in Strasbourg or Luxembourg."
  298
  The transfer of power that is being contemplated is not to this talking shop—how could it be a transfer to such a body?—but to the non-elected institutions of the Community; the Brussels Commission, the Council of Ministers and that most important body, the Committee of Permanent Representatives, which the Rome Treaty does not even mention.
  Mr. Sandys: Would the right hon. Gentleman feel differently if the European Parliament were directly elected and given more power, which is what many of us feel should, and probably will, happen before long?
  Mr. Shore: I cannot and will not give a quick reply to that question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—simply because I take the right hon. Gentleman's view on this matter seriously. It would be wrong for me to give a light reply.
  I do not personally believe that democracies can be created just like that. Indeed, it is odd that hon. Gentlemen opposite should be putting a question of that sort to me when I thought that it was instinctive for Conservatives to believe that institutions grow and are not mechanically created.
  The whole structure of government in Europe is based on a division and separation of powers, and this makes it difficult for us to envisage a similar institution to our Parliament operating on a European level. This opens up a wide area for debate which it would not be right for me to develop this afternoon.
  I return to what I was saying about the institution which really matters; namely, the Committee of Permanent Representatives. Professor Dahrendorf, himself a Brussels Commissioner, said of this Committee:
  "In the past ten years these ambassadors of the Member States in Brussels have themselves dealt with nine out of ten questions that have been put to them without their Ministers ever having heard about the matter … if there are technocrats in Brussels, then these are they."
  Thus, what is involved is not merely a transfer of sovereignty from London to Brussels or from Britain to Europe, but a serious loss of democratic decision-making for this country. That is what is greatly in danger now.
  Even if the broad proposition in Clause 2 were accepted—and I have not said

  299
  anything to suggest that it should be—and even if the terms had been utterly different from those that have been brought back, I believe that the actual form which this Measure has taken is for many people an outrage. Indeed, it is as though it had been designed to give this House a kind of salutary shock, to teach it that it will count for so much less in future. [Interruption.]
  Let me illustrate this. I do not pretend to a vast expertise in these matters, which, in any event, will be pursued in later stages of the debate. The very fact that Clause 2(1) is to enact these 1,500 regulations "without further enactment"—[Interruption.] I want hon. Gentlemen opposite to note this. Even if we were quite powerless in the matter, it would surely be better if only to ensure that the House and the citizens of Britain knew what they contained if the more important of these Community regulations had been subject to special and separate enactment.
  Is it not extraordinary, too, that the Government should think it right, as Clause 2(2) suggests, that future directives of the Community should be the subject of a Statutory Instrument with the possibility of one-and-a-half hours' debate?
  There are many other facets of this matter which illustrate this point and which concern the doctrine of supremacy of Community law over British law. Need the Government have found it necessary to say, as Clause 3(3) says, that judicial notice must be taken by the British courts not just of decisions but even of "expressions of opinion" of the European Court? These are matters which I regard as offensive and unecessary and which must be changed.
  I come to what I consider to be the gravest of all objections to the Bill. For the massive changes which the Bill involves, the Government have not obtained the full-hearted consent of either the British Parliament or the British people. There have been many occasions in the past when Measures have lacked public support, but the public have always known that such legislation could be, and often was, changed or amended by successor Governments. It is the clear intention of this Government—it is also the hope of the Six—that joining the Community should be
  300
  for Britain a permanent commitment. Moreover, as what I have already said makes clear, accession, as we know, will affect fundamentally the power of Parliament. One may disagree a little on how much but surely nobody in his senses, having read subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Clause 2, could reject that proposition.
  All countries have recognised that when major changes are to be made in their constitutions there has to be some special test of the nation's will. Other applicant countries—Norway, Ireland and Denmark—all have written constitutions, and it is part of their constitution that changes of the kind proposed should be subject to special procedures. As many of my hon. Friends will know, Norway requires a five-sixths' majority in Parliament, Denmark need a two-thirds' majority. In addition, all three countries will operate a referendum to make sure that the people understand, and if they so will it they consent to what is proposed.
  We have no written constitution in Britain, but we have practices and conventions which are no less important. The last time our democratic rules were substantially changed—and that change was challenged by the Opposition party of the day—was in 1910, when proposals were made greatly to reduce the power, as it then was, of the House of Lords. A General Election was fought on that very issue; and it would have been considered a grave impropriety had the Government of the day attempted to carry out that reform without first seeking an electoral mandate.
  What this Bill before us today proposes is far and away more radical than a change in the status of the House of Lords in relation to the House of Commons. For the first time in our history we are to have imposed upon us a written constitution, a constitution that we did not write or did not even help to write. That is the fact. Of course, the Government do not wish to put this matter to the test, and I do not blame them; but they do not need to do so now. Provided that they are ready to postpone the date of entry so that an election, or, if they wish it, some other serious test of opinion, can first be held, that is the basic minimum requirement for the people of this country, for the democracy of this country to continue, and for the people of this country who have faith in it.

  301
  I cannot emphasise too much how important I believe this matter of consent to be. When the people feel they are being made subject to laws in which they have played no part and taxes to which they have never consented, respect for both law and government is undermined. Our tradition for order and peaceful change is based not only on the character of our own people but on an enduring, if tacit, bargain between Government and governed that the former will play fair and will be scrupulous in how they deal with the people's rights. But if Governments do not play fair, if they behave in a way people consider to be in itself unconstitutional, there is evidence enough in British history to show we are not a docile people but a very determined and fierce one indeed.
  Finally, I put to the Government a very practical reason why they must obtain the prior consent of the people before they proceed with this Measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House confirmed to us only last week that no Parliament can bind its successor. What this Parliament has done successor Parliaments can undo—and it may need rather fewer than 12 Clauses to do it. So we must give notice now to the Government, to this nation and to the Six that we shall fight this Measure and we have high hopes and every intention of defeating it. But should the Government somehow get their way and should they succeed in placing this Measure on the Statute Book, then we warn them now that we intend to renegotiate and re-legislate. The argument will not end. No decision that they make can have more than an interim character until the people of this country have been able to vote upon it and themselves decide their own future.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: We have listened to one of the most extraordinary speeches we have heard for a long time in this House. The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) would leave one with some suspicion, having listened to his speech, that he does not care for the European Economic Community, he does not care for its enlargement and he does not care for any economic co-operation at all.
  What I find really disturbing, and I believe a number of hon. Members on
  302
  both sides of the House will share this feeling, when one recalls, as I am able to do. the very major contribution made by the Labour Government of the postwar years, the 1945 Parliament, towards re-establishing social democracy on the Continent, is that this speech of the right hon. Gentleman will be read with the greatest sadness by all who still remember—I shall not name them all—Lord Attlee, Ernest Bevin and people of that nature who really were building up social democracy in those days.
  By being put up as the keynote speaker on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman has done much to destroy all that. As we know in this House, the right hon. Gentleman has a painfully suspicious nature. I have noticed on several occasions during the time he has been in the House that he has taken an entirely unconstructive position. What really surprises us beyond anything. however, is how, if he really has felt like this about the events of the past five or six years, he could conceivably have remained a member of a Government which was attempting to negotiate just the kind of settlement which has been achieved by the present Government and which every negotiator on behalf of Labour, in this House or in another place, has said would have been regarded as reasonable and acceptable. How was the right hon. Gentleman able to accept office knowing how those negotiators were carrying on when what they were doing was, according to his speech today, entirely unacceptable?
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke about Parliament being merely a future spectator of legislative proposals. He cannot have read what has been discussed over the period of the last few years and what my right hon. and learned Friend said from the Front Bench. It was a Socialist Government, under the Leader of the Opposition, who ran out just now, which set up the value-added tax and established a headquarters at Southend. This, as I understand it, was all in preparation for entry into the Community. This, as far as I know, has never been denied. It was certainly the last Government which did that. From what the right hon. Gentleman said towards the end of his speech, it is staggering that he has no personal idea of what is occurring on the Continent, at the Council of

  303
  Europe or in the European Parliament. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Michael Foot Mr. Michael Foot rose—
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, I am dealing with the right hon. Member for Stepney. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has interrupted constantly during the last three or four days but with nothing constructive. I am dealing with a speech made by his right hon. Friend. I know that the hon. Member prefers talking to listening but for the moment I am dealing with his right hon. Friend. Clearly, he is entirely out of touch with anything that is going on on the Continent, as a number of his right hon. and hon. Friends on the back benches will tell him, and with what is being proposed by the European Parliament to establish some kind of control; and he does not reply to a direct point put by my right hon and learned Friend about election to and greater power for the European Parliament. Surely, when the right hon. Gentleman is speaking for the official Opposition he can give a personal view of those two points. He says he has not been given the time to do it, but this is one of the great issues which has been discussed in the European Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman now wants to give an answer, he may do so.
  Mr. Shore: Will the hon. Gentleman treat seriously what I said and my reply to his right hon. and learned Friend?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: That is exactly what I am doing, but when the right hon. Gentlemen is officially making a keynote speech on this occasion he cannot even say "Personally my view is this or that" on a matter which has been argued for years in the European Parliament, in the Council of Europe and in all-party groups in this House. That shows how completely out of touch he must be with future parliamentary thought.
  I welcome the Bill and congratulate my right hon. Friends on the succinctness of it. It will clearly be a lawyers' delight, and I hope that in the course of time they will work out and regularise the intention of the House, expressed on 28th October by the overwhelming majority of 115—
  Mr. Powell: One hundred and twelve.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: My right hon. Friend says that it was 112. It would have been much more than that if there had been a free vote among hon. Members on the Opposition side, as there was on this side of the House. Instead, they were subjected to a strict three-line Whip. The fact is that there was an overwhelming vote in favour of joining the enlarged E.E.C. Parliament having willed the end, as I understand it the Bill is the means to achieve that end.
  I do not believe that any great new principle is involved but that an old principle has been extended, as my right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out. Let us recall the transfers of decision-making made under the N.A.T.O. Treaty by the Labour Government after the war and by our adherence to Western European Union and the International Monetary Fund. In all these, we pooled a fraction of sovereignty to facilitate decision-making by ourselves in conjunction with our friends and allies with whom we wished to have closer association. I believe that such pooling is necessary in the post-1945 circumstances, through the United Nations and other co-operation.
  Clause 2 of the Bill deals with a special point and no doubt we will discuss it at considerable length. So far as it concerns the delegating of legislation, I remind hon. Members that a great deal has already been delegated by this House to Whitehall, and probably, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, there will be need for some parliamentary method—Select Committees or some other set-up—to look into these instruments and proposed legislation.
  The institutions of the E.E.C. are of a newer and more modern type. A lot of thought has gone into the establishment of the Commission and of the European Parliament. These are both organic and evolving and have, I believe, already got quite far beyond the Treaty of Rome and the 1958 concept. The consolidation of the European institutions, including the Coal and Steel Community and Euratom, is on the lines that you, Mr. Speaker, proposed in 1956 in another incarnation. I am delighted that the Bill now sets out to consolidate those institutions.
  I believe that in all this, without arrogance, this country and all Members

  305
  of both Houses of Parliament have very much to contribute. As the American Bar Association says when it meets from time to time in Westminster Hall, this country is supreme in establishing institutions to maintain freedom under the law. That is what I believe we are offering through the Bill. The 1930s proved the necessity for unity in Europe to my generation and I believe that this is a concept to which many people in all our political parties have contributed and to which they will contribute in future.
  Those of us who attend the Council of Europe and other such assemblies find very great good will towards Britain among parliamentarians abroad as well as among officials. Like most of us, they have seen two great civil wars of Europe and are determined that the same thing shall not happen again. I believe that had the E.E.C. existed at the time, we would have avoided at least one of the last two world wars. I have instanced before in the House Dr. Bruening in 1929. I do not doubt that, if the E.E.C. had existed, we would have avoided the arrival of Hitler three or four years later. I believe that we in the United Kingdom must help to consolidate the progress made in the last 20 years and that this Bill is a method of taking part in the future development of Europe.
  There are two points calling for early action. Once the Bill becomes law there will be a growing involvement of parliamentarians. We are already beginning to discuss privately with other parliamentarians and officials of the Council of Europe the future of the European Parliament. A delegation from this House went to the European Parliament some months ago and today we welcome a return visit. We have so many friends. Listening to the right hon. Member for Stepney, one would think we were among a lot of people trying to do Britain down. The right hon. Gentleman should really go out there, as an ordinary back bencher, and see the immense good will there is towards this country and the great desire to bring in our institutions and political parties in co-operation and the harmonising of policies.
  About a month ago some of us were at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg and in three days we discussed the Ostpolitik, pollution, agriculture and the European
  306
  monetary system. The day I arrived back, the House was discussing the Gas Bill and the Museums and Galleries Admission Charges Bill. Important as those Measures are, I wish we had more time to discuss the rather wider issues which are of prime importance to the future of the country.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned those discussions in Strasbourg. Does he realise, however, that I have been told, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, that there is no regulation under the Brussels Treaty for preventing the pollution of European rivers, including the Rhine? Can he tell us why this matter of major concern is not part of the E.E.C. legislation?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: That is the sort of thing we have to institute. That is what we will want to do in the European Parliament. That is why the Europeans want us in. They want us to introduce constructive ideas and policies. They want us to work with them to ensure that these things are done.
  Secondly, we must consolidate. I believe that there are five international assemblies at the moment. There are too many of them and there is too much overlapping. We have to reduce that number and also the number of committees, shorten the procedure and strengthen the European Parliament. We must strengthen the contacts of the European Parliament with the national Parliaments, because they will have to work very closely together. It will be difficult to do this if the European Parliament and the British Parliament both sit for 150 days in the year. The workload is very considerable and we must consider this question. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), who is a great expert on this, will help, I hope, and certainly Mr. Speaker and the Table Office have a major contribution to make.
  Mr. Neil Marten: This is an interesting point and one in which I have been extremely interested. Can my hon. Friend give his own views of how the European Parliament should operate? Does he envisage Members of this House becoming also Members of the European Parliament, or would they be separately elected? What are my hon. Friend's final views?
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: I do not want to take up too much time as so many other hon. Members want to speak. There will obviously be a transitional period in which a number of hon. Members will have to attend the European Parliament as a number of them now attend the Council of Europe. That will be from 1st January, 1973. But sooner or later we will have to have direct elections to the European Parliament. This is one of the things which hon. Member on both sides will have to work out. But there will be a transitional period in which the British Members of the European Parliament will have to be Members also of this House, at the same time.
  I believe that the procedure of the European Parliament can be shortened and the work of the committees and the Assembly given the sort of help which we have had from Mr. Speaker and the Table Office in this House in the past. I remember that the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas), when he was President of the Assembly of the Council of Europe, tried to get the Assembly to start on time and got himself into trouble by doing so. Nevertheless, punctuality in starting is one of the little things which can add considerably to the better working of institutions.
  I hope that by these two practical suggestions one can do something to ensure the necessary and growing parliamentary support for the Council of Ministers and the Commission on whom, as the Bill adumbrates, the main responsibility at the moment rests. It is too early to sum up and probably one will never be able to do so, but my generation has seen the economic difficulties of the 1930s, the nearly-too-late reaction against the dictators, the Second World War and the change from Empire to Comonwealth pass into history. Through this Bill we have a great chance to put imagination, experience and energy, especially of the young, into a new endeavour to help ourselves and others in and beyond the European Economic Community in prosperity and freedom.
  6.21 p.m.
  Mr. Bert Oram: The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) suggested that this debate should be seen as a consequence of the debate we had in October when there was a very considerable majority in favour
  308
  of the principle of this country entering Europe. I think he will find as this three-day debate proceeds that many of us will wish to see it conducted not in the way he suggested, but in a much wider context, particularly in the context of the Government's whole approach to the Treaty of Accession and its consequences and the way in which the Government have disregarded what we consider to be the proper rights of Parliament to examine the whole question of British entry.
  Of course the hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, the Government and their supporters, would be delighted if on Thursday evening all who voted in the Aye Lobby in October were found in the Aye Lobby again; but that most certainly will not be the case. I speak as one who was in the Aye Lobby on that occasion. I make no apology to anyone for having taken the difficult decision to vote against my party, but I shall certainly be in the No Lobby on Thursday night, and I am glad to have this opportunity of explaining what admittedly is a contradiction of strict logic. In parliamentary affairs it is often the case, and I believe it must be the case in this complex issue of the Common Market and Britain's attitude to it, that strict logic cannot be pursued.
  Throughout the debate over the last 10 or more years on this subject, it has always been very certain in my mind that this issue is one of the most complex, most difficult, public issues that this House or this country has ever had to face. Not only is the analysis of this problem extremely difficult, but I believe factors have changed over time. Frankly, 10 years ago I spoke in this House as an opponent of British entry into Europe but I believe that certain important factors have changed. It was for these reasons, and others, that I voted as I did in October, but it was only after careful weighing of the complex issues involved that a minority on this side of the House went into the Government Lobby on that occasion.
  Not only is the issue complex. When I voted on that occasion I was more than ever conscious of something that I am sure all hon. Members on both sides of the House are often conscious of—the many conflicting loyalties that we have to try to serve when we vote and speak

  309
  as Members of Parliament. It is no longer the simple case, as Burke once posed it, of, "Are we delegates of our constituents or are we representatives?" Parliamentary life today is much more complex than that. There are many pulls of loyalty that we have to try to reconcile. If I were to list those which I try to reconcile they would number six or seven. There were the views expressed by my party at its conference and at its meeting upstairs here. In my case there were the different decisions of the Cooperative Congress to which I owe no little loyalty. There were representations made to me from my constituents. There was my understanding of what was in the interests of my constituents, which was not by any means the same as the way in which they expressed their views to me.
  In particular, there was my sense of commitment to the Labour Government's application to join Europe combined with my assessment of the negotiated terms which I believed, and still believe, to be not radically different from those which a Labour Government would have achieved and would have recommended to this House. If therefore one has in mind, as I think we must have, in the first place the complexity of the issue and in the second place the complexity of the loyalties which we have to try to serve, it is not surprising that there is a kind of contradiction which I frankly recognise in my case in voting Aye in October and No this week.
  The reason is that in debating this Bill we have come to a very different issue from the issue of principle which we were deciding upon in October. This Bill provides powers in respect of entry to this Conservative Government. We cannot separate consideration of the powers that we are asked to confer from the question of who is to exercise those powers. In my view this Government have proved completely incapable of exercising the important powers and taking advantage of the important opportunities which British entry into Europe would provide.
  I take four contributions, or advantages, which attach to British entry into Europe. In each case I believe the policies that this Government are pursuing and their lack of success in administering the affairs of this country
  310
  make it sure that they are not a fit body of men to take Britain into Europe.
  My first point, which was in mind when I voted in October, is that British industry, certainly in the long run, stands to benefit from having available to it a much larger, duty-free market in which to sell the goods which British technology is increasingly able to produce. But the integration of British industry with the industry of Europe and taking advantage of that wider market is an operation needing considerable skill and considerable expertise in the exercise of government influences in conjunction with industry.
  I ask myself: can we trust this difficult operation to a Government with such a tragic record at home, a Government which have divided workers from management through the Industrial Relations Act, a Government which have allowed unemployment to reach the present tragic heights and which are now presiding with gross incompetence over one of the worst industrial crises in living memory? We are not entitled to confer the powers which this Bill proposes on a Government with that record.
  Secondly, I believe that Britain in Europe could have an important contribution to make in terms of democracy. Here I agree with a great deal of what was said by the hon. Member for Cheltenham. Opponents of British entry point to the Community's bureaucracy. They rightly point to the democratic weaknesses of the institutions of the Community. They are right to do so. They seem to think that we have in Brussels an inflexible, unchanging situation, whereas I believe that Britain in Europe could bring an important and powerful influence to bear in improving the institutions of the Community. Here again, I do not believe that we can entrust this operation to a Government which in the process of taking Britain into Europe have shown such disdain for this Parliament.
  The last time the House debated these things it was as a result of the signing of the Treaty of Accession by the Government before the House had had an opportunity to debate it. The Government rested their case on the fact that this is the usual procedure for the signature of treaties, not recognising as everyone surely recognised that this is a treaty with a difference. This involves the whole

  311
  economic and social welfare of the British people, and it ought to have had a very special examination by Parliament.
  The hon. Member for Cheltenham described the Bill as succinct. That struck me as a euphemistic expression for a Bill which is little more than a trick of legislation and a means of bypassing Parliament over many of the considerations involved with British entry. We welcome what the Chancellor of the Duchy told us about the setting up of an ad hoc Select Committee with certain powers to examine instruments. As he was announcing that, it occurred to me that it would have been well to have had some body representative of this House which could examine the vast volume of legislation already enacted in Brussels, which this Bill will make the law of the land. We ought to have had a special Select Committee to enable Parliament to examine that amount of legislation meticulously. These are massive defects in the Bill and the Government's presentation of it. We cannot entrust the important operation of improving democratic procedures to this Government.
  Mr. Marten: Did the hon. Gentleman take that view on 28th October?
  Mr. Oram: I pointed out in my opening sentences that I regard this as a highly complex situation. I do not take the simplist view that the hon. Gentleman takes on this question. I envy the simplicity of his approach, to be able to see the true light through all the complexities. The pros and cons have to be weighed. It is possible to go into a Lobby recognising that in the other Lobby are people with strong arguments and genuine opinions.
  The third contribution that Britain could make to Europe is related to foreign policy. When I was an opponent of entering, Dr. Adenauer was in power in Germany. In my opinion, he and others wanted to use the E.E.C. simply as an economic base for anti-Soviet foreign policies. I believed this to be against the interests of world peace. That situation has changed, and Germany is now led by Herr Willy Brandt, who is conducting his Ostpolitik, which is one of the most hopeful and significant trends in international affairs. I would like to
  312
  see a Britain in Europe led by a Government anxious to work side by side with Herr Willy Brandt's Government to establish better East-West relations. This Government with certain skeletons in their cupboard over East-West relations are not the kind of Government to which this kind of delicate diplomatic operation can be entrusted.
  Another contribution I would like to see Britain making in Brussels involves relationships with developing countries over aid and trade. I do not accept the view sometimes put forward that Britain's membership of the Community is inevitably and necessarily detrimental to the interests of the developing countries. There is plenty of evidence if we look at the figures to show that it may be in the interests of the developing countries for Britain to join Europe. With our unique relationship with so many different members of the developing world, having been at the head of a Commonwealth of nations, we have a unique contribution to make in Brussels. When we see Britain led by a Government with the record that they have in Rhodesia we have to ask whether that is the kind of Government that can go to Brussels and dare to suggest that Britain under their leadership understands what is in the interests of the African people. For these reasons I shall be voting against the Bill, because I believe the Government are unworthy to exercise the powers in the Bill. I believe that this country should be in Europe but that this Government are unfitted to lead us in. It is the duty of the Opposition to oppose this Bill and the enabling legislation, but I hope that we shall not do it in a purely negative way.
  There is a vast amount of positive and constructive work for us to do, and I hope that the movements from which we on this side of the House derive our strength will use the coming months not only politically to oppose the Government and all their works but also diplomatically. We can exercise diplomatic influence in Europe, forging links wherever possible with the Socialist Parties, the trade unions and the co-operative movements of Europe, working out practical proposals which we, by our united efforts, will seek to implement in the years that lie ahead.

  313
  That I believe to be the task of my party, not opposing for the sake of opposition, not being negative for the satisfaction of saying "No", but facing the future realistically and getting ready for the day when we on this side of the House will be speaking for the nation, and can best speak for our nation from within and not outside the larger European assembly of nations. That I believe to be our duty, and we shall move forward to it.
  6.41 p.m.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) confessed that his action in voting for entry on 28th October and voting against the Bill was a contradiction. With all respect, I found that confession easily the most persuasive and convincing part of his speech, which, contained a few routine and pejorative attacks upon the Government and all their works, which were misconceived and unfounded.
  The hon. Gentleman sought to base his proposition on a distinction between these two matters on the ground that one raised an issue of principle and the other not. He could not be more wrong. The argument is wholly unfounded and untenable. As I shall seek to show the House in the course of my argument, the Bill raises the question of principle in a direct and clear form. It is indissolubly linked with the proposition of entry, as I shall seek to show.
  This is a short Bill, but it comes at the end of a long argument. Its provisions conclusively prove, as I and some others on these benches have maintained from the outset, that entry to the Community involves as an inescapable condition substantial and irrevocable sacrifice of the sovereignty of Parliament and the subordination of British to Community law over a wide and varied range of our economic and social life. It was for that reason that I told the Macmillan Government in 1961 that I could have neither part nor lot in the thing they sought to do.
  The knowledge of what is involved in entry in these respects should not surprise even those who could not see the truth in 1961, because the subordination and the sacrifice were clear to see, despite
  314
  perhaps some deprecatory glosses, in the White Paper of 1967 on the Legal and Constitutional Implications. For that reason, I, again with other of my right hon. and hon. Friends on these benches, opposed the proposition of entry. On that occasion I said:
  "Parliament here would not be able to reject or vary the regulations. The collective laws of the Community would bind the individual British citizen, and Parliament and the courts alike would be powerless to intervene."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1618.]
  If the White Paper of 1967 shrouded the scaffold in deference to sensitive observers, the Bill displays the axe and the block for all to see, but it is doing only what the White Paper foresaw that the Treaty of Rome requires. If the Bill is harsh it is because the requirements of the treaty are harsh. If the Bill erodes the power and purpose of Parliament and makes deep and unprecedented inroads into our democratic institutions, it is because these things are a condition of entry.
  On that account it may perhaps be an odious Bill, but at any rate it is an honest Bill. Clause 2 is drafted, and impeccably drafted, to give precise effect to Article 189 of the treaty. The key words of the article are that the regulations are to be directly applicable. If Britain were to seek to join the Community and failed to ensure that the regulations are directly applicable in this country, we should be in breach of our treaty obligation. The obligation goes with membership. If we accept the desirability of membership, we accept the necessity of the treaty obligations, and the simplest way of meeting these obligations is to enact as has been done in Clause 2. The Clause has the virtue of honesty. The obligation is clear, and effect is clearly given to it.
  I am against Clause 2, but not because of its drafting. I am against it for the same reason as I am against Article 189. I am against it for the same reason as I was in 1961 and 1967. We cannot logically accept entry and reject its requirements. They are the obverse and reverse of the same medal; they are linked together like Siamese twins by their nature and subject matter. To dress up the obligation in a cloud of words and schedules would have been possible as an exercise in draftmanship, but to set out word for word and syllable for syllable

  315
  what is in the Community regulations—and nothing less would meet our obligation under the treaty—could not lessen one jot or one tittle the surrender of sovereignity and the subordination of our law. It could, at most, conceal it. It might perhaps conceal the iron fist, not in a velvet glove, but in some shoddy, shabby, synthetic covering, behind which the iron fist of Article 189 would remain the harsh and inescapable reality.
  Clause 2 is the heart of the matter. It gives effect to Article 189 by making Community regulations what are called "enforceable Community obligations". Perhaps coyly, the draftsman has not spelt out this unattractive phrase in the Clause. He has left it to be inferred from a delicate reference to "enforceable Community rights and similar expressions". The Clause makes the Community regulations ipso facto part of our national law to be enforced as such in the courts. If the Bill is passed that will happen without the right of Parliament to amend a single syllable of those regulations, without the right to uncross a single "t" or undot a single "i". That would happen even if every hon. Member wished in his heart to reject both the form and content of what is proposed to be done.
  We can trace the course of the regulation. It would come from Brussels and immediately become law under the terms of Clause 2. It would be enforced in the courts merely on the production of a copy of the Brussels regulations certified by an official in Brussels of whose existence we are unaware. It would not be possible to query the regulation, either in the courts or in Parliament. Not only are the regulations directly applicable but they are also, in the words of Article 189, "binding in every respect".
  If the citizen is in breach he presumably can be committed for contempt. That means he would be liable to imprisonment until he has purged his contempt, and this means until he has complied with the Community obligations—an obligation in the formulation of which he would have had even less say than Hampden in the formulation of ship money—and we know what Burke said about that. Twenty shillings would not have cost Hampden his fortune, but the payment on the principle on which it was demanded of half that sum would have made him a slave.
  316
  What of the future regulations? Under the Bill and in law the position of future regulations will be the same as the existing regulations. The wording of Clause 2 makes that clear
  "All … obligations … from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaty …".
  This means that every future regulation emanating from Brussels will be incorporated into our law ipso facto, holus bolus, lock stock and barrel, hook line and sinker, just as in the case of regulations already existing.
  It is suggested that in practice we would have some say in the future regulations. But how much say? And who is "we"? It is certainly not Parliament. The regulations will be made by the Council of Ministers on the proposal of the Commission in what primarily is a bureaucratic exercise between the Commission and the permanent representative in Brussels. The Council of Ministers may collectively have some say, but collectively they are not responsible to any national Parliament. Individual Ministers may be questioned in their own Parliaments, but the answer will always be the same. They will point to the Treaty of Rome and say, "What can I do? We are powerless in the face of the Commission and our colleagues on the Council."
  The debate by Parliament of draft regulations referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend might prove to be an interesting exercise, but will be largely or even wholly academic. The formulation of the regulations is dealt with by the treaty. The treaty provides in Article 49 that, unless the Council of Ministers unanimously agrees, the Commission's proposals cannot be amended. The House will see that, the bigger the Community, the less the chance of the required unanimity; the bigger the Community, the bigger the power of the Commission. Ministers will shrug their shoulders and say, "It is annoying, but there is nothing we can do about it".
  These are the realities of the matter, in law and in practice. The Commission will have a great say; the permanent representatives on the Council and the Ministers collectively will have considerable say; individual Ministers may have some say; but Parliament, to all intents and purposes, will have no say. Our

  317
  Ministerial representative will be unable to secure amendment unless he can carry with him each and every one of his nine colleagues on the Council. Once the Commission's proposals take the form of regulations, then immediately we are bound by Article 189 and Clause 2. We would have to swallow them undiluted at a single gulp, no matter how bitter the draught may be.
  Suppose we did not do so. Suppose the House were to reject its mute, inglorious rôle. Suppose it were not prepared to accept the eunuch's rôle of titular responsibility without real power. Suppose it felt that the rights of Parliament were not or should not be at an end. Suppose Parliament had the temerity to reject, or even to amend, a regulation. Suppose Parliament sought to pit its sovereignty against the overriding authority of the Community. Parliament would clearly be embarking on a lost cause. The treaty would decide decisively against it.
  The treaty tells us that community law must prevail mid that the regulations are "directly applicable". Clearly, we should be in breach of our self-assumed obligation. The treaty provides remedies for such breaches. It can be seen from Articles 169 and 171 that this is a matter first, for the Commission and then for the Court of Justice. The Community Court would decide, and Westminster would yield to the wisdom of Luxembourg.
  It may be said that this argument applies only to the regulations, that if the directives will have to be applied by statutory instrument, and, therefore, Parliament will have a say. This is true, but it will be only a limited say—a say as to the form, not the substance. In the elegant idiom of Article 189, we would only have a "competence as to forms and means". The "result to be achieved" by the directive will be binding on us, and so Parliament will have only a limited jurisdiction and only a narrow responsibility. Therefore, it is a small crumb of comfort—and it is getting smaller.
  Some five years ago directives loomed large on the Community scene and regulations were more occasional. In 1966 there were 753 directives and decisions, and only 230 regulations. But by 1971 the directives had gone down to something over 400 and the regulations had gone up to 2,893. Therefore, the propor-
  318
  tions have been dramatically reversed. The Community now legislates overwhelmingly by regulations—by that form of procedure in which Parliament would have no say at all.
  This is the reality of the prospect before us—the total subordination of Parliament over this wide range of our economic and social life. Surely Mr. Leolin Price, Q.C., was right in writing to The Times:
  "It is difficult to believe any Englishman, however entranced by magical dreams of future advantage from our membership, could view this prospect without fearful misgivings."
  It is because of the strength of these misgivings that so much is made of the so-called right of veto—a right which it is suggested we have under the Luxembourg agreement—or, more strictly the record of disagreements. Aided by constant and soothing reassurances, the "Luxembourg agreement" and the "right of veto" have assumed an almost magical significance in the eyes of the more credulous and euphoric advocates of entry. The suggestion is that we or any other member State could at will insist on unanimity even where the treaty prescribes a majority or qualified majority. These matters are presented as the universal elixir against all future ills, a universal escape mechanism from all unwelcome obligations, of almost Houdini-like efficacy and ingenuity.
  I am sorry to have to shatter the illusion, but I see no substance in this—like the emperor's clothes in the fairy tale. How could it have substance? How could any organisation, least of all so tightly knit and rigidly centralised an organisation as the E.E.C., proceed on the basis that collective and binding decisions would be at the mercy of the unilateral veto of one member exercising his own judgment as to what constitutes a thrreat to his own country's national interest? The proposition has only to be stated for this absurdity to be apparent. A darts club could not be run on that basis, let alone the most centralised, most institutionalised, most bureaucratic and most multinational organisation ever moulded by the act of man.
  One Minister could claim that a regulation without amendment would prejudice the vital national interests of his country. Another Minister would counter-claim

  319
  that if the amendment were made it would prejudice the vital national interests of his country. What then, if the matter is not to be resolved by law, by the Court of Justice in the clear terms of the treaty, and if for these there are to be substituted the amorphous, imprecise and impracticable provisions of the Luxembourg record of disagreement? How will matters be decided? It can only be by the chaffering of the market place, by a trial of strength, by the law of the jungle. It reduces this noble concept to a free-for-all, catch-as-catch-can, devil take the hindmost operation, and the edifice of co-operation and idealism—the raison d'être of the Community—would quiver and crumble in the dust.
  The Luxembourg arrangements will not protect us. No right of veto will save us from the rigours of the treaty or free us from the obligations that we are asked to assume. Let there be no illusion about this. I must say to right hon. and hon. Members who cherish any such illusion, in the words of Hamlet's exhortation to his mother,
  "Lay not that flattering unction to thy soul."
  We have this position. The Treaty of Rome imposes severe obligations and constitutional sacrifices on all who seek membership. These obligations will be imposed on us and these sacrifices required of us are without mitigation or abatement.
  But it is said that other countries have made these sacrifices and not found them unduly irksome. I cannot accept that as a parallel. In saying that, I mean no disrespect to the Six. I have never said, and I never will say, that our institutions are better than theirs, still less that they would suit their countries better. All that I have said, and all that I say now, is that they are different. In the context of parliamentary institutions and the sovereignty of Parliament, we are not comparing like with like.
  Our parliamentary institutions are the product of a slow unfolding over the generations. Here where we sit today parliamentary democracy had its genesis, cradled in the care and fostered by the faith of our forefathers. The Six, by contrast, are mainly young in nationhood and younger still in parliamentary
  320
  institutions. Of the Six, only two have histories as nation States of substantially over 100 years. Two practice, in substance or in form, a presidential system. Only the Bundestag has a Question Time on the British model, and the Bundestag sits on average only 45 days a year. In the Netherlands, Oral Questions average only 10 a year. It is true that there is a half-hour Question Time each sitting day in Belgium, but there are no supplementary questions. Clearly, there is no precise parallel. None of the Six has parliamentary institutions with the deep roots, extensive rôle and high regard obtaining here.
  Let there be no mistake: we would be asked to make a sacrifice beyond that exacted from others. Our sacrifice would be greater because of our long and deep attachment to parliamentary institutions. It would be greater, too, because those other countries at least had a share in fashioning the laws to which they owe obedience, whereas we would be bound by laws in the making of which we had no hand.
  I do not want to see this Bill on the Statute Book. I wish the Government well, of course. But I believe that the Government and the country would be better off without the Bill. If the Government do not get the Bill, it will mean that the Prime Minister's expressed condition of entry is not satisfied: there will be no full-hearted consent of Parliament. It will show that the vote of 28th October was not meaningful in that the purported majority for entry was based in large measure on shifting sands, on the votes of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who, having purported to will the end, refuse to will the means.
  The vote on this Bill, in a more meaningful and practical sense, will be a vote on the principle of entry. I say with clear confidence that if the Bill is not carried Britain will never join the European Economic Community. For me, that would mean the end of a 12-year struggle, as it would for my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir R. Turton). But it would not only be an end. It could be a beginning. It could provide a new chance for the Government, if they will take it, to shake off the shackles of the Treaty of Rome, a chance for the Government to seek new forms of co-operation by way of

  321
  association, not integration, a chance for Britain, in the Churchillian phrase, to be
  "…linked but not comprised, interested and associated but not absorbed."
  It would give Britain a chance to seek new friendship with the Six, strong and sincere, close, cordial, and in full conformity with our traditions, our sovereignty, our institutions and our way of life.
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. George Darling: The best I can do in following that powerful, lucid and extremely critical speech is to say that, even if I were enthusiastically in favour of Britain entering the European Economic Community, I should have very grave doubts about whether I ought to support the Bill until the criticisms and the questions had been dealt with properly.
  I want to raise some rather narrower questions dealing with the procedures and the methods of working of the Community, especially in terms of the European Parliament, which is the question that was asked by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). However, before I do that, I want to express a critical view of an aspect of our discussions which I find extremely irritating.
  Towards the end of his speech, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that the Bill would enable us to play our full part in helping to create a united Europe by our joining the Economic Community. My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) said more than once that we were discussing an application to join Europe. Of course, it is utterly misleading to talk about our going into Europe or our helping to create a united Europe by joining the Economic Community. We are already in Europe, and we shall play our part in helping to create a united Europe regardless of whether we join the E.E.C.
  It is well to point out that, even if the E.E.C. is enlarged to 10 members, it will still be only a part of Europe. There are 28 European sovereign countries, excluding Russia and places like Lichtenstein, Andorra and the Isle of Man. There are 18 which will be outside the Community. Some will apply for associate membership. But half of the European countries will still be outside the Community. What I find unacceptable in the statements that we hear from the
  322
  Government is that we have no proposals before us for bridging the divisions which exist in Europe at present.
  I was glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman give his views about how he proposes that this Parliament should examine and approve or otherwise the Community's proposed instruments. Apparently we have to accept all that has gone before. We are now looking to the future. We need to know the extent to which our examination of those instruments will give us authority to amend them. This is a point which has been raised by a number of hon. Members before. We want to know whether the regulations, the directives and the decisions which will come from the Commission will be submitted here before they go to the Council of Ministers and what we can do with them.
  I am very glad that we are to have an ad hoc committee of both Houses to examine the regulations, the instruments and the decisions. But I need to know a great deal more about the composition and authority of that committee. I assume that it will be a Select Committee. Will it bring forward proposals to this House on how we should deal with the regulations and whether we should accept, reject or amend them? If the committee brings forward its own proposals, will we have authority, before any decisions are taken by the Council of Ministers and by the Committee of permanent representatives which now seems to be the key organisation in the Community, to reject, to amend or to do anything more than merely express an opinion?
  I suppose that we have to discuss and question the Bill on the assumption that it will be passed and that we become members of the Community. One decision which has to be taken if we pursue it in this way is how we would play our part as a member of the Community in making it more democratic.
  The Minister will probably know—at least, he should know—of the proposals which have been put forward by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. That is the largest single political group but, I regret, not the majority group. The Socialist Group is concerned, as all of us are, about the lack of democracy in this whole set-up and it has put forward some proposals. I will not

  323
  go through the whole lot, but four of them are extremely important.
  The first proposal is that the directives and recommendations from the Commission should be submitted to the European Parliament for approval before submission to the Council of Ministers. The second is that the European Parliament—at the moment it is only an advisory council; it has not authority to do anything—should have debates in which Ministers are compelled to take part, as they do in this House, to defend their views and decisions.
  The third proposal is that the European Parliament should have authority to initiate regulations, directives and so on. The most undemocratic part of the Community is the fact that the Commission alone has authority to initiate anything. If the Commission does not initiate anything, the Council of Ministers is paralysed; it cannot do anything. The European Parliament is useless because in the treaty, as every hon. Member knows, the Commission alone has the authority not only to initiate all these laws, regulations, decisions and opinions, but the power to amend them. Nobody else can amend them. It may be true in practice that the views expressed by Ministers, by the national Parliaments and by the European Parliament influence the Commission to amend some of the proposals which it may bring forward, but it is well to know that the Commission alone has this authority. Therefore, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament has put forward these proposals to get a much greater degree of democracy.
  The fourth proposal, which is perhaps the key to the whole situation, is that the European Parliament should have greater control of the budget, the financial arrangements and taxation systems of the Community.
  The question I now ask the Government is whether, if we become members of the Community, our representatives at the European Parliment and our representatives on the Commission and on the Council of Ministers will all work together to support the Socialist Group's view on how to achieve greater democracy in the European Economic Community. If we have the assurance that they will generally support these propositions, that assurance should receive some indication
  324
  in the Bill itself. I think that can be done. I have looked at Clause 2 and tried to understand what is to me an almost incomprehensible collection of words. Having used the word "procedures" in Clause 2(2), it should not be beyond our ability to put forward Amendments to extract the Government's views on the procedures.
  I now come to the question which was asked by the hon. Member for Banbury. If we democratise the European Parliament and give it greater control in a democratic fashion over the Community's activities, it will have to meet more frequently. I think that there are now 10 Assemblies a year. That means that a member of the European Parliament is tied up in Strasbourg, Luxembourg, Brussels or wherever it may be for more than 100 days a year. I raised this matter in the previous debate and got no answer from the Government. How do the Government propose that a Member of this Parliament, with constituency obligations and the rest, shall spend 100 days or more in Strasbourg or Luxembourg? It just cannot be done.
  Who will represent this Parliament in the European Parliament and play a full part in the work there? If the European Parliament has greater control over the Community, the work which will be done in Strasbourg will not be just sitting around and asking vague questions of the Ministers and the members of the Commission; it will be as active a part in that Parliament as we play in this Parliament.
  How are the 36 Members to be elected or appointed? We cannot wait much longer. If the Bill goes through we shall be there as full Members next year. Obviously we ought to have Members going along as observers this year to get the feel of the place and to understand what goes on. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) has an idea that we should divide the country into 36 constituencies and elect an extra Member at the next General Election for each of those larger constituencies, which would represent one-thirtysixth part of the country. I do not know whether that is feasible.
  We do not want to end up with 36 Members of the House of Lords going to Strasbourg. That would be disastrous. We must also make sure that

  325
  whoever goes, whether appointed or elected, has some association with the Select Committee which will examine all the legislation, the administration and the finances.
  I am convinced that at the moment the Government have not the faintest idea how to deal with the situation. It is no use saying that this matter has only just been raised. I am not the only Member who, in the debates we have had over the last year or 18 months, has persistently asked the Government what they intend to do about representation in the European Parliament. The thoroughly undemocratic character of the E.E.C. is the part which needs to be amended by British initiative if we go in.
  I want to offer some constructive suggestions about the division of Europe. If we want a peaceful, expanding and united Europe, we must seriously consider the relations between the E.E.C. and other European countries which are not members. We must make greater use of the institutions that already exist which can be used to bridge the divisions and to get common policies on a whole wide range of issues on which the members of the Community can play their part, but only as members.
  The first, of course, is the Council of Europe. At the moment it is only a talking shop but it has produced a number of useful policies which Governments have put into operation. I suppose its greatest achievement is the European Convention of Human Rights. But there is a great deal to be done among the 17 democratic countries of Western Europe which belong to the Council in harmonising policies. Even more important, the 17 countries would include the 10, if the Community is enlarged to 10, as well as the associated countries and those which are not associated, to discuss common economic policies.
  But this has to be taken further. There are many issues, not only in economic policy but in questions of environmental policy and of pollution, in which the Iron Curtain is complete nonsense. There must be co-operation between East and West.
  One of the first institutions set up in Europe for co-ordination of policies, which is still in existence, is the United
  326
  Nations Economic Commission for Europe. It still works, but not effectively, because we have paid far too much attention to the Economic Community, the Council of Europe and the Western European Union and not enough to this bridge between East and West. I hope that better use can be made of it.
  We want to make sure, if we enter the Community, that it becomes more outward-looking than it is at the moment and that it is concerned about the countries outside, particularly the developing countries. This can be achieved by a proposition now being actively discussed within the Council of Europe that the Council should arrange one session each year at which a special O.E.C.D. report on European economic development will be discussed and the relations between the rich countries of Europe and the developing world will also be taken into consideration. This would mean that the Council of Europe would for the first time provide a parliamentary forum for the discussion of O.E.C.D. reports, which, I think hon. Members would agree, are generally the most constructive and best-informed reports on economic developments throughout the world.
  But in order to have this outward-looking discussion, the democratic countries of the O.E.C.D.—I stress the word "democratic" because there must be parliamentary representatives involved—which are not in Europe would also be invited to attend these discussions on what would then be worldwide economic policy—the United States, Japan. Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
  This is a very important proposal and I hope that it will come to fruition. But it should be reflected in the legislation which we are bringing forward This should not necessarily be done in precise terms, but the need for a reappraisal of European institutions if we enter the Common Market should be implicit in the discussions on this Bill and perhaps implicit in the Bill itself by, if it is possible to do so, putting forward constructive Amendments—perhaps to Clause 2 and Schedule 2—so that these proposals might be written into the Bill.
  But, given the Bill as it is and given my views on making everything more democratic in Europe, I certainly could not vote for the Bill as it stands.
  7.25 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Hordern: I hope that the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) will forgive me if I do not follow his arguments. There must be at least 630 different ways of looking at the Bill, but in two days' time we have to come to a decision. I should say immediately that I am a supporter of the Bill. I have come a very long way since my original very ardent support for Europe soon after the war and in the 1950s, although I thought then that there were material advantages in joining Europe, and I still do. I thought then that we could exert more influence within a large and unified Europe than if we were to remain outside, and I still hold that view.
  But Europe has changed in many respects since the Treaty of Rome was signed and that is now the Europe which we shall be joining. My attitude has always been and will always be to seek to do what will best serve British interests as one sees them. I am not swayed, as are some hon. Members, by the common welfare of Europe as a means of serving British interests best. I very much doubt that it would. I say this not because I have any philosophical or constitutional fear for our sovereignty but because there are certain proposals now within the Communities which do not accord with our best interests or, ultimately, with the interests of the Communities themselves and which I think we should do our best to see do not come about.
  That is why I take very seriously my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's assurance that no country's vital interests would be overruled by other members. I rely on this safeguard and on the practice in the Council of Ministers of the unanimity rule. I assume, of course, that we have vital national interests, since there would otherwise scarcely be any point in having a defence for them.
  The vital national interests which occur to me are those which refer to the defence of our right to act in our own defence and to take our own actions in the service of our own economic interests. So I must declare at once that I do not regard the forced movement towards economic and monetary union to be in that category at all.
  Ultimately, of course, I believe that monetary and economic union is desir-
  328
  able, just as I believe that sunshine and rain, in appropriate quantities, are also desirable. It all depends on where one happens to be at the time. But the point is that both must be allowed to happen naturally.
  There is no provision in the E.E.C. Treaty for economic and monetary union. Article 104 lays down that
  "Each member state shall pursue the economic policy necessary to ensure the equilibrium of its overall balance of payments and to maintain confidence in its currency whilst taking care to ensure a high level of employment and stability of price levels."
  If that article means anything at all, it is an article in defence of a national view of a country's economic policy.
  I therefore admit that I was not much moved by the Community declaration at The Hague in 1969 of its intention to move towards economic and monetary union, or by the Werner Report. When the German mark floated last May and the international monetary crisis occurred last August, any mild apprehensions I might have had that something might be done about economic and monetary union disappeared altogether when other currencies started to float.
  Nor was I moved by the Washington agreement which meant that currencies returned to fixed rates though with much wider margins. This arrangement, though not as good as freely floating rates would have been, seemed to me as much as could reasonably be hoped for at the time, particularly if changes in the parities became more acceptable as time went on. But now it seems that those promising arrangements are on their way to being reversed. It looks as though President Pompidou and Chancellor Brandt have agreed to implement the Werner proposals concerning narrower margins and even to co-ordinate their economic policies. That is, after all, what economic and monetary union is all about.
  The consequences of monetary union are very considerable, however, because it can result only in a loss of national political control of economic policy. If we are to have exchange rates which do not vary one from another, there must be a common rate of growth, and even of inflation. These rates of growth will not be settled by us or by the Government in power at the time. They will be

  329
  settled by a body of bureaucrats who will probably, indeed almost certainly, not be responsible to our constituents. Regional policy, too, will be settled by them. Eventually, if the logic of monetary union is carried out, we shall not be able to decide to reduce taxation or to increase public expenditure as we may wish.
  All these I take to be matters of vital interest to us. I am not in the least impressed by the idea that we could be Members of a European Parliament which could decide these matters, nor can a wider responsibility ever compensate for the total responsibility to our country that we bear as Members of this House. If we are to safeguard our vital interests, those interests lie in preserving our right to change the parity when we wish or, better still, to let it float. They lie in doing or not doing those things which are designed to improve the lot of our people, and our people alone. That may sound to some like an insular attitude. That is as may be, but I firmly believe that the cause of European unity, to which I am attached, is best served by the free movement of people, capital and goods between our countries. This is the process required to create that identity of interest which alone can bring about real and substantial European unity.
  It seems that the force behind the movement towards a common currency is motivated more by a desire to act in concert against the dollar, especially against the Eurodollar, than to get monetary union for its own sake. I should have thought it would be possible to find other means to accomplish that objective. I hope that our entry into Europe will strengthen the competitive and liberal forces in a larger market, from which we have much to gain. When capital is allowed to move freely within the Community, sterling could become the currency of settlement and there would then be a natural demand for it to be the common currency of Europe. Let us not in the meantime be in any hurry to do anything which may limit our freedom to move in our best interests. That is, after all, what we were sent here to safeguard. Regarding economic and monetary union, it would be best to do very little very slowly and to preserve the right to say "No".
  Mr. Marten: Have not the Government given a pledge on the question of economic and monetary union that they will move as far and as fast as the Six? Therefore, how can that be answered?
  Mr. Hordern: My hon. Friend is right in mentioning that point. I have taken it most carefully into consideration. I hope that the Government will move as fast and as far the the Community will move in the direction of economic and monetary union, and I hope that the Six will not move at all in the direction of economic and monetary union. I believe that that will be the position.
  But the Bill is, happily, not confined to economic and monetary union. I regard it as a passport to a wider community of nations in Europe. No one can tell with certainty how this Community may develop but I am certain that we should be part of it. That is why I support the Bill.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. Austen Albu: It is a good thing that in the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) and the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) we have been directing our attention to the future and not to the rather sterile arguments of the past. It is extremely important that during the debate we discuss the policies which the Government would pursue, or which the present Opposition would pursue if they were the Government, if the Bill is passed.
  The hon. Member for Horsham made a speech very largely dealing with economic and monetary union, to which I also intend to refer. My remarks will be necessarily from the point of view of a Labour Member of Parliament and a Socialist, and not from the point of view of a Conservative as that of the hon. Member. There will be differences, therefore, and that is very important.
  I have never underestimated either the dangers or the difficulties of joining the Community, but I happen to believe that the dangers or difficulties if we now exclude ourselves will be very much greater. I accept that there is bound to be some derogation of sovereignty although we may all argue as to how far we are prepared to go. Perhaps I am

  331
  prepared to go further than the hon. Gentleman.
  The speech made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) was based on the principle that he would not accept any derogation of sovereignty or any derogation of the powers of this Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) believes that the Community is a monolithic and hostile body. I do not believe that. I believe that we are about to enter a body in which we shall find friends on some matters and other friends on other matters, but, in any case, a body and a series of institutions which will change over the course of years.
  Those who talk about the long period of slow growth of parliamentary democracy in this country should remember that the pace of change at present is very much greater, and we cannot expect an institution in this country or our relationship to the rest of the world to remain static. The dangers and difficulties which undoubtedly will arise from our entry into the Common Market can be overcome only if the Government have a clear and well thought out policy of advance and reform for the Community. It is appropriate that this is what we should be discussing on the Second Reading of the Bill.
  It is clear that the policies which would be advocated from these benches will be different from those advocated from the Government benches. We should expect also that the Socialist and Social Democratic Parties in Europe would support the policies that we put forward, and no doubt they would be opposed by the British Conservative Party and by its allies in Europe. But the political future of the Community depends upon developing the politics of social interests and upon those politics replacing the politics of national identity.
  Therefore, I believe that we on these benches have a duty to formulate cur own policies because, whether or not the Bill is passed, it remains, as I understand it, our policy in principle to join the Community. No one believes that there will be any very rapid advance towards a federal Europe. In fact, very few people in Britain understand what
  332
  federalism means, and the words "federalism" and "confederalism" are often used as though they had the same meaning when, of course, they do not. Therefore, I do not believe that the new Europe of the Community of 10, as it will be in the near future, will become, if it can ever become, a major world power. But if it is to make progress in both the economic and social spheres as well as at the level of international policies I believe that the central policy-making institutions will have to become stronger and not weaker.
  I give as an example the common agricultural policy, about which there is general agreement that there must be substantial changes, both in the interests of the people of the member States—and not only in the interests of our people, because many of the other people in the countries of the Community would like to see those changes—and in the interests of international trade. It is unlikely that such changes in a direction of which we would approve—I do not mean the actual abolition of the common agricultural policy—will take place if the pressures of interest groups on individual national Governments forces them to use the veto, which the hon. Member for Horsham was so fond of.
  Although major changes of policy must still for a considerable time, I suppose, be subject to the unanimity rule, I believe there must be a speedy enlargement of the areas of policy determined by the qualified majority. No doubt this must lead to substantial institutional changes in the Community, especially in the direction of greater democratic control along the lines which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough discussed.
  While I am on the question of institutions, I should like to ask the Government some questions about staffing, both about the British members who will join the Commission and about the British delegation that represents British interests. I realise that the Diplomatic Service will see the advantages for its members of service in Brussels or Luxembourg, but there are disturbing rumours of the reluctance of other Departments to treat service there as a priority instead of a backwater.
  This is an extremely important matter. The development of the central organs of

  333
  the Community cannot depend on occasional pitched battles at the summit, but must depend on the day-to-day work of staff of the highest quality. If the Community is to develop as I should like to see it develop, as a really powerful world regional grouping, but also if British interests are to be properly protected, we want not only a staff of very high intelligence but a staff given a very high level of leadership, a staff very loyal to what they are doing. The representation of British interests is vital if the support of the British people for the Community is to be strengthened.
  I hope to see the Commission move away from the trivia of regulations, which always create such hilarity in the House, and start developing policies to deal with the great economic problems facing the world. I have already mentioned the common agricultural policy, which is bound to change over the years ahead. Associated with that must be the negotiation of trading rules with the rest of the world to ensure an expansion of world trade and not a decline into economic nationalism which would hinder the growth of Community unity. The coordination of economic policies, which is bound to come and which I very much favour, will lead in the end to economic and monetary union, but it must precede it. We cannot have an economic and monetary union if we have not gone much further in the co-ordination of economic policies.
  These developments must not be looked upon as ends in themselves or, as M. Pompidou seem sometimes to think, as means of establishing a sort of metaphysical European identity. Common economic policies and eventually monetary and economic union are worthwhile only if they are thought of as instruments for greater economic and social wellbeing. The Europe of the Community is not just an alliance of nation states; it is also an economic integration of disparate regions differing very much in natural resources and degrees of economic prosperity.
  What proposals have the Government for a European regional policy? Are the Government sufficiently aware of the need to have such a policy agreed before there can be move towards more rigid European exchange rates? That, too, is an extremely important matter.
  334
  I turn to something, rather different, the question of the large international companies, a matter that must be of considerable interest to our trade unions, which I hope are developing European strategies with their European counterparts. If there is not a concerted European policy for the control of such companies, they will control us by playing off one country against another.
  I turn next to Europe's rôle in world affairs. So far, in spite of many conferences and meetings, this has made little progress nor do I expect a great deal from the summit meeting this year. Presumably the Government do not believe, any more than I do, that European security is possible in the foreseeable future without the support of the United States. One reason is that it will be many years before the Community generates sufficient central authority to become a great power on its own, and maybe it never will. Meanwhile, its influence will depend on the degree of cohesion it can develop. This will depend not only on economic integration but also on the development of common international and defence policies Now that there are no disturbing personalities on the scene, this should be rather less difficult.
  At the end of a long period of peace—we have already had in Europe 27 years—with growing world co-operation in trade and technology and such matters as pollution, Europe, protected by the nuclear peace of the great Powers. should be able to exercise a powerful influence in the world—not, as some people once thought and some may still claim, as an alternative to adequate military defence but as a result of its success. If this situation is recognised by the Soviet Union, it may be that for the first time in history Europe can look forward to permanent peace and civilised cooperation.
  The increasing policy formation by the central organisations and the enlargement of the field of policy not subject to the unanimity rule imply a greater degree of parliamentary scrutiny and control. I am glad that a great deal of today's debate has been devoted to discussing how we can develop machinery of control by a European Parliament, the procedures for the direct election of its members, and their relations to our own Parliament.

  335
  It is essential also that we ensure—this will be a Government responsibility—adequate debate of matters within the competence of the Community organs if we are to maintain an informed public opinion and interest. We must not let this slip away into occasional debates of a rather boring character. Community affairs will play a substantial part in our lives, and it is important that we maintain an interest in them in this House.
  On a slightly less friendly note to the Treasury Bench, I must make some remarks addressed to the Prime Minister. If our entry really is the greatest issue for this Parliament, as I suppose he believes, he has gone about it in the most extraordinary way. To go into Europe we needed the strength to defend our own interests and to help to develop Europe. We needed a united, confident nation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) said, what we have had instead is unfair and divisive policies that have produced a nation which is, by common consent, more divided and dispirited than at any time since the war.
  Entering the Community is not just a technical, legal or constitutional matter. With the right leadership, it could be the opportunity to play a great part in world developments which would bring the greatest benefits to our people, their children and their grandchildren.
  7.48 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: There has been a great deal of discussion about whether the vote we shall take on Thursday night is a vote of principle. To my mind, it clearly is. It is not a new principle. It is the same old principle—whether it is worth a curtailment of our powers of initiative in exchange for the economic benefits that entry will give. It is the same old principle that was debated at length in the last Parliament, has been debated in July and October in this Parliament and is now to be debated again. But there is no change in the factors.
  The hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) tried to explain why he will vote differently on Thursday from the way he voted on 28th October. He did not suggest that there was any difference in the principles or that the Bill would not carry out a promise or threat, which-
  336
  ever way one likes to look at it, given in previous White Papers. He said that the pressures of six or seven conflicting loyalties had been brought to bear and that he did not want to give the present Conservative Government great powers because since October they had shown themselves too unworthy to have them.
  Taking the last point first, the complaint against the Bill is not that it gives us great powers but that it takes powers away. We are constantly told that powers will be going from London to Brussels. If the hon. Gentleman does not like the present Government, the more powers that are taken from us the more he should be delighted. It is clear that this is a question of principle. It is no good pretending otherwise. The principle is well known and it is the price we have to pay.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that there was nothing in the Bill that abridged the sovereignty of Parliament, and there is a case for that proposition. The question is not so much whether this Parliament can subsequently pass whatever legislation it likes or whether the Royal Prerogative is somewhat diminished by this Measure, as it clearly is by the words that were first uttered by my right hon. and learned Friend in introducing the Bill. For example, the right of veto is undoubtedly affected by the obligations that we are undertaking.
  The real question is what the courts will do if a situation arises in which subsequent legislation of this Parliament appears to conflict with the regulations of the Council or decisions of the European Court.
  I find in this Bill no guidance to the courts on that important point. There is nothing wrong with the Bill so far as it goes, but it does not go far enough in that it does not give the courts guidance in what will be the crucial matter, indeed in what has already been a crucial matter in the courts of the Six. There is nothing in the Bill which tells the High Court what it is to do if legislation subsequent to our entry into the Community or Statutory Instruments are passed which the courts think conflict with the regulations or the Treaty of the Six.
  The courts should be given this guidance because the problem has vexed

  337
  the courts of the existing Member States. The courts of the different countries have operated in different ways. It is not enough, therefore, to say—as I am sure the Government will say; perhaps the Solicitor-General will say it on Thursday—that we must see how we get along—solvitur ab ambulando. That sort of pragmatic approach which Governments are apt to adopt is not good enough in view of the way this problem has afflicted the courts of the Six.
  For example, in Italy there has been the case of Costa. There was a dispute as to whether the manner in which the Italian Government had nationalised their electricity undertaking was or was not in breach of the treaty or a decision of the European Court. Although the constitutional court of Italy decided that Mr. Costa must pay his electricity bill and that the Measure which the Italian Government had passed was constitutional, nevertheless a puisne judge in Milan decided that it was not. This illustrates the need to give guidance to the courts rather than to insist on complete sovereignty for Parliament. Despite the decision of the constitutional court of Italy and of the Italian Government, Mr. Costa need not pay his electricity bill and he has never paid it. He therefore defied all the forces of the Italian State, judicial, executive and legislative, with success.
  In Belguim the courts and all the organs of Government insisted on imposing a tax on the import of milk and that country's courts upheld the Belgian proposition, until that awful day when the European Court said that the tax was totally unconstitutional and in conflict with a decision of the Six. The Belgian Government have had to pay back billions of Belgian francs to those who had already paid the tax.
  Then there was the case of Algerian semolina, to which I have referred before. The French insisted on allowing the free entry of this and other products from Algeria into France contrary to the rulings of the Commission and the European Court. Typically enough, the French courts upheld the national rather than the international decision, and there it rests.
  We therefore have in bold relief three cases of such conflict. The courts of England should be given guidance in the
  338
  Bill as to which way they are to behave if such a situation were to arise here. But I find no such guidance anywhere in the Measure. It is assumed that the legislature and Statutory Instruments will always continue in harmony with Brussels and Luxembourg. Even by inadvertence that may not occur, yet no guidance is given to the courts on that point.
  Indeed, there are in some cases suspicions of the suggestion that this Parliament will still be able more or less to do what it likes. I am not taking an extreme position. Sometimes it is suggested that we shall be able to with, draw altogether and tear up the treaty. That is clearly within the competence of this Parliament, though in my view it would not be desirable to do anything of the sort. But that is not what I am now talking about. I am considering the situation where, although we seek to remain a member—or shall we say not daring to leave—legislation is passed which conflicts with European requirements, particularly in fiscal matters. Suspicions are aroused that although we are paying lip service to the price that we must pay, the Bill does not go as far as we are in duty bound to go.
  For example, in the famous Clause 2(2) about which we have heard so much we find that when we are obliged to make provisions for implementing Community obligations the word "may" is used. We read:
  "any designated Minister or department may by regulations"
  do this, that and the other. In subsection 2(b) we read that
  "the person entrusted with the power or duty may have regard to the objects of the Communities and to any such obligation or rights as aforesaid".
  There is no option. It is not "may" but "shall". The same is true of Clause 5(7). There are in such matters, for example, small indications in the repeal Schedules that repeals of the existing legislation shall take effect from such date as the Secretary of State "may" by order appoint. He has very little option in the matter. He must order such repeals to take effect on either 1st January, 1973, or such later date as the transitional provisions allow, otherwise we are in breach. Therefore, I am not persuaded in my own mind that the necessary comprehensiveness or clarity is to be found in the Bill as regards these directions to the courts.

  339
  There is another mater which causes some trouble to lawyers, and this after all is the lawyers' day. In July and October last we had the economists' beanfeast when they were telling us about the advantages or disadvantages of joining, but this is a legal matter and, therefore, we should examine the legal consequences and the legal gaps very seriously. My right hon. and learned Friend referred to Clause 3(2), by which
  "Judicial notice shall be taken of the Treaties, of the Official Journal of the Communities and of any decision of, or expression of opinion by, the European Court…as aforesaid."
  That is the meaning of the treaty's regulations and directives—judicial notice shall be taken. My right hon. and learned Friend said that this imported the jurisprudence of Europe into the British legal system.
  "Jurisprudence" is a big, grand, Oxford word not used at the university from which my right hon. and learned Friend and I came, and I do not know what, in its vagueness, it means in this connection. Does it mean, for example, that the courts of law in England do not use the system of interpretation of Statutes and Statutory Instruments they at present use when construing a European regulation? The method of construction of legislation in this country has grown up through the centuries. It is very large in volume and great learned works are written about it, and it has at present a certain artificial character.
  For example, as hon. and learned Members, and perhaps others, may know, one may not look at the travaux preparatoires. One may not cite speeches made in the course of legislation. One may not, except with great exception, look at the White Paper which came before the Bill. One way not try to gather the intention of Parliament from what was said in Parliament at the time. This is a fairly rigid rule. Some object to it, others believe it means that litigation is much shorter than it would be if one were allowed to bring in this great mass of stuff. Whether that is right or wrong I do not know, and for the moment I do not care.
  What I care about is whether in interpreting these many regulations and treaties the courts in England have to adopt the English method of interpreta-
  340
  tion or to adopt a continental method of interpretation; that is to say, do they use a different instrument? Do they use the European instrument—because they are quite untrained to do so at present—for construing European documents? One would have thought they would have to do so since there is an appeal, although that is not quite the right word, to Luxembourg. There is a provision, and indeed a mandatory provision, in the case of courts of appeal by which in case of difficulty, or if the matter is raised by either of the parties before the court, the matter goes before the European Court. There, of course, the method of interpretation will be quite different from ours.
  One would think, therefore, that the lower courts in this country would be bound to employ the European method of interpretation, which is quite different from ours and in which they have no training. This may sound a small point but to my mind it illustrates the lack of guidance which courts are to be given in future when they have actually to do the task which this House will be imposing upon them by passing the Bill. Therefore, although the Bill is a very neat and artistic job, to my mind it begs a very big question: the question of what the court is to do in the case of such conflict, that conflict being whether legislation subsequent to our entry into Europe, legislation from these Houses of Parliament, is to be preferred by the judge if he nevertheless believes that it conflicts with a European regulation. I hope I may be given some aid and comfort in my worry on that point.
  It is a big matter, so big that one wonders whether quite enough attention has been made to the imminence of this. Again, one can only instance this from one's own small researches. As Members of this House may know, I am very interested in competition policy. I have with me one of the 42 volumes of secondary legislation, that on competition policy, and I have been reading the legislation on that because it is one of the things that comes into force in the law of England immediately. There is virtually no interim period. But if we are legislating for England in the course of the Bill, as we are, this must be up to date; and even in this volume, which is part IV of the European Communities secondary legislation, there is no copy, nor is any copy available, for example,

  341
  of Regulation 2821/71 which was made two months ago. It is not possible to find an English text of it. There is a French text but no English text is available.
  I know the enormous mechanical difficulty in doing what the Government seek to do but if it is to be translated into English law and applicable in England in a very short time we really must have up-to-date translations as these regulations are issued so that we know in what form we are altering the law of England.
  Mr. W. Baxter: I am listening with great attention and interest to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I wonder whether he would be prepared to give way so that we could have an immediate reply from the Front Bench to the very important point he has raised.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I should be very grateful for this flattery from the hon. Member but I think it is rather a Greek gift. I believe I said in the course of my opening remarks that I hoped my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General would reply to some of the things I have been saying because, as we know, he has been responsible for the brilliant condensation of the Bill which we all admire. I should have thought he, if anybody—even with the great respect I have for my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, whose brain in all fields is that of a polymath—might be a suitable respondent.
  The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. He said earlier that the economists' beanfeast was over last October. Therefore, I hesitate to intervene on a point of substance. I assure him that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will have his attention drawn to my hon. and learned Friend's remarks.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I could go on with these details, which are important although they may sound very small.
  The only final matter I should like to mention is that it seems to me that when we are putting into the law of England these 42 volumes—because that is what we are doing—the majority of them are
  342
  very small but some of them are very big. Perhaps the biggest one, and the one that is hardly ever mentioned in these debates, is that relating to the right of establishment and residence of the nationals of the various member States of the Community. The word "national" appears throughout this legislation, for legislation it is, both in the treaty and in many following regulations. I instance the regulations of 25th February, 1964, and 22nd October, 1968, which provide, apparently in the widest terms, that all member States have to provide the right of establishment and residence for the nationals of other member States, not only for those who have already come and taken up occupations but for those who wish to provide services.
  As is well known—I do not wish to tread on any toes—the word "national" is very difficult to give a meaning to in our nationality law because, owing to the peculiarities of British law, we have never really defined what is meant by "United Kingdom national". We know what it is not; it is not necessarily someone who has a United Kingdom passport. But what it is we do not know. Before we put this very severe legislation into the law of England, which is what the Bill will do, we must know the answer to that sort of point. What exactly is meant by a "national of the United Kingdom" when we are passing legislation which gives not only a United Kingdom national the right to go to France or Germany, set up business there, and, if he wishes to provide services, the rights of residents there, but also gives to nationals of other countries the right to come here? The former is, of course, much the harder of the two, for reasons of difficulty of definition which I have already given.
  I hope that during this debate—or if not in this debate, during the Committee stage—the Government will devote a long time to explaining exactly not merely what obligations we are undertaking but what opportunities we may insist upon, and for whom, because unless this is done, much as I approve of the price we are paying—I think that we should pay it in general terms of entry into the Community—I do not think it has been sufficiently spelt out. Let there be no hypocrisy, no misunderstanding and no vagueness. Then, and only then, no one can subsequently allot blame.
  8.13 p.m.
  Sir Arthur Irvine: Vast changes are being proposed in our law by this Bill. I feel that the scale and extent of those changes are perhaps still not sufficiently recognised. The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) indicated that guidance was not given by the Bill as to what English courts would do and what English law would be in the event of there being a conflict between existing English law and the Community law. I think that on that point precisely the effect of the Bill is clear. I think the effect is that the Community law will prevail. That is how I interpret it.
  I think that, in considering the Treaties of Accession and the decisions in principle that were made as to the relation which should exist between Britain and the Community, the better view was that the courts of law in this country would be very reluctant to proceed on the basis of drawing implications as to what was intended to be the state of the law in England as a consequence of the decision to accede to the treaties and to enter into arrangements with other Powers. Although I regard the Bill as having a great number of faults, I think it possesses undoubtedly a kind of ghastly clarity. My reading of it leads me to the conclusion that in the kind of conflict to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred the effect of the Bill is that the Community law should prevail.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: That was not the conflict I posed. In conflict between existing English law and Community law, I have no doubt that our courts would prefer the Community law. I was concerned with future English legislation, made with all the knowledge of Community law, which therefore might be held to be deliberately against Community law. What would they do then?
  Sir A. Irvine: My inclination is to think that the effect of the Bill, so far as it goes—and it goes pretty far—is to provide that in all instances of conflict the Community law shall prevail. Of course, the expectation may be that in future the English law will go out of its way not to conflict with the Community law. Be that as it may, the effect of the Bill seems to be to impose the supremacy of Community law. Of course, it is that which, for my part, I am inclined to dislike, and
  344
  dislike very strongly, because I value so highly the great inheritance of legal principle and English law which we have.
  I have said that I believe that the scale and extent of the changes proposed are perhaps not fully recognised. First, there are the provisions of the Community law which we bind ourselves under this Bill to make the law of the United Kingdom without further enactment. These are the directly-applicable Community provisions referred to by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I suggest to the House that we should ask what is the effect of these directly-applicable provisions upon our existing law? What encroachments do they make upon the common law? That is a matter of tremendous importance to the House. The answer is that no one knows. There may be someone somewhere who knows, but he is a rare and recondite personality because we have heard of 1,500 regulations—provisions galore—and it is almost unthinkable that they should not involve here and there very substantial inroads and encroachments upon the common law.
  The fact is that the House does not know—and it is fair and accurate to say so—what is the scale of the encroachments upon the common law entailed in these directly applicable Community provisions which are to become part of the law of England without further enactment. It is obviously a strident innovation in our legislative method to treat the common law in this way. I say without hesitation that we can easily underestimate the scale of what is taking place.
  In passing, I am sceptical about the whole concept of the directly applicable provisions. I should be interested if the Government could assure us that there is no overlap between the matters referred to in Schedule 2 of the Bill—taxation changes, the retrospective matters and changes in the criminal law—and the directly applicable provisions. The Minister of State, Treasury will appreciate the importance of that because the Schedule purports to say that under the headings that are set out in the Schedule the rights of the British Parliament by way of Act of Parliament and our ordinary legislative proposals are preserved, and indeed emphasised, whereas the effect of Clause 2 is to say that the Community law will prevail without further enactment in this Parliament. Quite clearly, an absurdly

  345
  complex and unsatisfactory situation would arise if there were any overlap between the two, but I am rather inclined to think that there probably is. I believe the category of the directly applicable provision, as it has been described, is a rather contrived and artificial category.
  I agree with the criticisms that have been levelled against the method that this Bill adopts to impose upon us this huge new body of inchoate, unidentified and not understood law. A curious feature of the matter is that Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome went out of its way, stringent though it is, to allow a certain latitude to each member State as to choice of form and methods whereby the directives of the Community's authorities were to be implemented. I appreciate that the treaty draws a distinction between directives on the one hand and regulations on the other. Even so, given this latitude which the Treaty of Rome affords us in the choice of the forms and method, this Bill resorts to the most authoritarian and dictatorial method imaginable because it provides at one fell swoop—quite unnecessarily, I think—in Clause 2 that all the rights, powers and liabilities, obligations and restrictions referred to in the Clause are to become part of the law of the United Kingdom.
  In other words, it adopts a method of spurning the opportunity which Article 189 of the treaty afforded to choose a method which would give the House a reasonable opportunity for considering what the content of Community law is and what, by the same reasoning, is the new law that we are invited to adopt. Clause 2 could have provided—it does not, but it could—that within a given time of the date of any directive of the authorities of the Community the substance of that directive should be incorporated into English law by Act of Parliament or Order in Council or, in appropriate instances, by regulation. That would have made it possible for the directives to receive a much closer and more particular specific consideration than the present proposal offers. Instead, a sledgehammer treatment of the whole matter has been adopted. Whether this is because of the need to shorten the Bill for reasons of parliamentary convenience I know not, but there has been resort to a much more draconian and automatic pro-
  346
  cess of application of community law than even the Treaty of Rome requires.
  I still think that, although the matters I have referred to are important, the question that must be uppermost in the minds of most of us on what on any view is an historic occasion is what is to happen in the new dispensation to the common law of England. There are no safeguards for that; there is no safeguard in Schedule 2 or any other Schedule for the common law. Let the House, for Heaven's sake, recognise the solemn seriousness of that circumstance to which I have drawn attention. The plain truth is that the common law of England, as I understand this Bill, goes by the board the moment it is found to be in conflict with Community law. Will any Government spokesman deny that this is so, or confirm that this is so?
  Of course, I know that it will be said that the common law broadly covers a different field from the field of concern of the law of the Community. That will be said; but if even a formal power is conferred upon some authority beyond our shores to impose restrictions upon the whole body of our common law, that I should have thought was the gravest possible matter for this House to consider. The common law is the very foundation of our liberties. The Royal Prerogative is that pre-eminence which the Sovereign enjoys over and above all other persons by virtue of the common law. The special dignities, the privileges and the powers of the Crown are allowed to it by the common law. It would be a gross betrayal of its responsibilities by this House if one of its own Bills conferred upon an authority such as the European Community the power to diminish the body of English common law.
  It is true, of course, that the common law has in the minds of many people been eroded and encroached upon by a great mass of delegated legislation and by Government Departments already. That has been a subject of complaint over a long period of years. At least, however, these impositions and encroachments were effected by Parliament itself, and the powers Parliament gave in that connection Parliament could take away.
  It is a most astonishing thing that the Conservative Party in 1972 should appear to be ready to regard with such restraint and acquiescence this formal

  347
  abandonment of the common law and all that it has meant in our history. For us on this side of the House also the importance of the common law cannot possibly be overstated. Perhaps our main point of difference from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is the need which we feel, for the purposes of social justice and equality, better planning, and the rest, for a greater rather than a less degree of State interference in affairs. As a Socialist Member of the House I would readily acknowledge as a concomitant of that need that the common law should be carefully sustained and preserved as a defence against possible encroachments on liberty by the State. It is wholly consistent and compatible with our outlook on this side to say that we want more extensive State power and at the same time the bulwark of the common law to protect society from excess of power whether from the State or from anyone else.
  So all of us, whatever our opinions may be on these matters, can surely join in a tribute to the common law and all it stands for, and I would suggest to the House that it should consider with the greatest gravity the provisions of a Bill which, as I understand it, would give to an authority outside the realm power and capacity to diminish that precious and invaluable heritage.
  8.32 p.m.
  Mr. John Loveridge: It is interesting to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Sir A. Irvine) plead for the common law, but, as he himself has said, Governments have already eroded that common law by Statute and by codification. It is indeed possible to envisage that this House may well find methods for the examination of new proposals coming forward from Europe which would give us even better opportunities than we have had in the past to look at further possible erosions of the common law. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) mentioned the need for a citizenship Act, and I think many of us sympathise with his feelings about that.
  Earlier, the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) spoke o the vital importance of having a common international
  348
  defence policy. Here, Britain is particularly fitted, in entering the Common Market, to bring together more closely America, Europe and the under-developed world, including the Commonwealth. There our influence can be for peace.
  So I welcome today this European Communities Bill. It will change the history of nations. The history of Europe has been one of trade wars interrupted by wars of blood, but today we see the Six nations working together within the Common Market for their common good. The results of this have been that they have been able to sell more of their goods to one another. Their standards of life have risen, and their average earnings per head, formerly behind our own, are now well ahead of ours. They have caught up with and surpassed us in wealth per head. At the same time, they enjoy longer holidays and put away more money for their social services than we do.
  We for our part have seen our trading pattern become increasingly more difficult. Old preferences for our goods have shrunk as Commonwealth countries have bargained for trade outlets in richer markets. Now the United States has felt forced to raise barriers against imports, and may do so yet again. Its golden hoard of money that for so long serviced the growth of world trade has run down. As a result, the Americans have been obliged to take action to save their balance of paymens and the remainder of that hoard. At the same time Japanese exports increasingly threaten ever more severe competition with our own.
  We might manage alone, but how much easier it will be within the new grouping in Europe. There we can have a guaranteed market on a scale that will allow our manufacturing exporters longer production runs, and therefore more profitable runs. Thus, we shall even find it easier to trade with the whole world from the improved base of a larger home market.
  A great deal has been said about the price of food. If we look a decade ahead we can see that European farm prices will be limited because of the gains in productivity that can be foreseen. They will move into an era of high output, and of mechanised farming, and we in Britain can take advantage of that as exporters of increasing quantities of farm machinery. We can help speed up

  349
  the modern, cheap farming methods which Europe needs and at the same time brings profits to our own traders.
  The Six are substantial importers of food. Their long-term interests must be to keep down the price of these imports. Those interests are the same as ours. Europe needs us just as much as we need Europe. It wants a full share of the most advanced industries of the future. So do we. In the past we have been grateful for the outpouring of American capital. It is not though in our interests, nor in the interests of the European nations that the greatest and fastest-growing industries of the future should be dominated by one nation. The new large market will make it possible for us, with other Europeans, to finance these forward-looking industries.
  This will bring us the benefit of enormous numbers of new jobs in the advanced industries and on the boundaries of those industries. New component industries will grow up. Where will the businesses grow? They will grow here, because with the present tariff barriers we can already see the temptation that many firms experience to put their capital in Europe so that they can operate in Europe behind the tariff wall. At the moment we have to sell goods there across this tariff barrier. How much easier until we enter, therefore, to move the capital into Europe.
  Mr. W. Baxter: That point of view was put forth on a previous occasion when this country set up the E.F.T.A. Agreement. It was said that the arrangement would give us a market of over 50 million people and an opportunity to expand our industries to become competitive with the Common Market. That argument has not been proved; why should we believe it now?
  Mr. Loveridge: One difficulty was that for six years the hon. Members right hon. Friend was in charge.
  I will give a specific example from my own constituency of how this could come about. The Ford Foundry is able to sell substantial numbers of crankshafts to Germany across a price barrier and a tariff barrier. If the tariff is taken off, how much simpler it will be to sell at a higher profit and so benefit the nation?
  Mr. Baxter: It is being argued in certain circles that we should go towards a
  350
  free trade world. If that became a reality, would it nulify the hon. Member's desire to become a part of the Common Market?
  Mr. Loveridge: No, Sir, it would not. We should be much better enabled to negotiate for what is described as a free trade world from within the greater strength of a larger regional grouping than we should on our own.
  I turn now to how the financing can best be achieved. To service the growth of trade we need to encourage currency reform. The lack of a regional currency within Europe led to the growth of the Eurodollar. Europe has also used the dollar standard as its unit of account. As the dollar is no longer as secure as it was, that practice is becoming of doubtful advantage.
  We need some safe alternative to the outpouring of American gold that has financed world trade. The dollar can never serve as safely in the future as it has in the past. We must, therefore, welcome the initiative towards new world reserves, but these may not quickly gain full world-wide acceptance because they are based essentially upon paper and not upon convertability into gold, and their credibility relies on trust between nations.
  Will the Government consider whether, within the context of our joining Europe, there is room for a new monetary rôle? Much has been said in our debates about there being more "stop" than we like in the "stop-go" policy. We can all see the danger of the balance of payments becoming difficult if our growth is as we expect it to be. Trading patterns are hard to quantify in advance, but cannot we eliminate the danger of a severe strain in our balance of payments, caused by growth after we join Europe, by encouraging a common balance of payments boundary round the nations of the new market? Could we not at the same time consider a possible new reserve rôle for the strong currencies of Europe in association with the franc area and the sterling area? There is no need for this concept to cut across the growth and the building up of a world reserve. It could be complementary to it.
  This is looking some way ahead, but we need to plan now if we are to develop investments, to create new jobs and to enable factories to take advantage of retraining programmes. All this may endanger our balance of payments if we

  351
  do not come to some sort of terms with our European neighbours after we join.
  To sum up, I have said that the old patterns of trade have become more difficult and that we should seize the chance of entering a large and secure market for our goods. Even now we should be looking beyond the immediate treaty. The currency question is one of the most vital British interests at which we should look in the future and should be the subject of further negotiations as soon as possible. It is second in importance only to the need to strengthen the alliance within N.A.T.O. itself. The opponents of entry offer us no great alternative. They would leave us trading on our own in a dangerous world. Greatness is not to be found in doubting fears, but it can be found in taking the opportunity to enter this new market in which we can sell our goods to the benefit of us all. We can also through the Common Market bring closer together the comity of nations. If we join Europe, I feel that we shall strengthen not only our economy but our safety in the world.
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. David Clark: I find myself in almost complete disagreement with the hon. Member for Horn-church (Mr. Loveridge), except on one point when he indicated that in the near future our balance of payments might be weakened.
  The hon. Gentleman has put the case for the Common Market in the way in which it has been put on platforms throughout the country. He believes in the way in which it is put and he put his case honestly. However, has he not read the report by M. Coppé, the commissioner in charge of social policy in the E.E.C.? Has he not read that unemployment in the Community has become worse than it has been for years? When the hon. Gentleman talks of a rosy future and of an economic boom, has he not read about the conditions set out in the Official Bulletin of the European Communities Volume 4, No. 2? Speaking of their own activities they say that
  "the boom conditions which had prevailed in the Community in recent years had passed their peak. The growth of economic activity had lost momentum against the international business background of slower growth and a certain easing in international markets. But
  352
  this tendency had not been reflected in the trend of costs and prices, whose rapid rise remained the most disturbing feature of the economic trend in the Community."
  Whenever one looks at economic reports today one finds that, as compared with the golden future which was forecast for the Community in the 1960s, the bubble has now burst. The argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman does not hold much water.
  Mr. Loveridge: Does the hon. Gentleman think that smaller production lines with smaller markets would help to reduce prices?
  Mr. Clark: I do not entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point, and he links his point with the aspect of a larger market. He is falling into the fallacy that we shall have a larger duty-free access to other countries. What we are seeing in the E.E.C. is the erection of tariff walls against some of the third countries which in many cases comprise our great markets. I would not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way.
  Mr. Clark: No. A number of hon. Members wish to speak. I should prefer to make my few points and then allow others to take part in the debate.
  In opening the debate, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster took credit and praise for the fact that his Bill was a short, succinct and concise piece of legislation. That is a fairly true description of it. Indeed, I cannot visualise any other document having a greater effect on a nation being put forward in such a succint manner. The only document which bears any similarity to it is Machiavelli's "The Prince". From my reading of that, it appears that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has adopted many of the points advocated by Machiavelli in putting forward the Government's case for Britain's entry. However, perhaps we should not be surprised because it appears that, by using legal jargon and very clever legal wording, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has got himself off a parliamentary hook. In effect, it will be very difficult for those who have grave doubts about the Common Market to raise many of the important points of issue which should by right be raised in this Chamber.

  353
  That really is what this debate is about. By this legislation the Government are taking away some of the basic liberties and rights of the British people. The Bill is a short-cut Measure. In taking this short cut, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has weakened certain of the liberties which we could have maintained even within the Community rules. I find that very regrettable.
  The present Government's handling of this issue has not only caused serious damage to our democratic institutions. It has damaged our democratic way of life. It was said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman earlier that democracy is not simply institutions but a feeling for institutions and a feeling that a system should work. There is a strong feeling in the country at the moment that the Government are ignoring the will of the people. I remember only yesterday, when we debated the emergency regulations, how a number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite made the point that public opinion would always win and how the Government were right to take those emergency powers since public opinion wanted such action. I wish that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would pay a little more attention to public opinion when it comes to the Common Market.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman has dealt himself and our democratic system a grave blow, not only by the way he has taken us into the Common Market but by the way he has presented his information and stifled the means by which we in Parliament might discuss what is probably the most paramount of all legislation to come before this House since the end of the war.
  Perhaps I might take one point from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech. He believes—and he has maintained this position today—in our entry into the E.E.C. and that if the Bill is passed it does not mean that there will be any surrender of sovereignty.
  Mr. Rippon: I said that there would be no essential surrender of sovereignty, and successive speakers on both sides of the House have agreed that there is no essential surrender of sovereignty. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition is on record as putting it much better than I could, as is Lord Gardiner.
  Mr. Clark: I take the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Perhaps I misquoted him. But even taking his words "no essential surrender of sovereignty", it seems to me that there is an essential surrender of sovereignty. The supremacy of Parliament has been waning for years. The power of the bureaucratic machine has caused that to happen. But the basic point about entry into the E.E.C. is that we shall be entering an even large bureaucratic machine and, even if the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament once had some reality, it will apply no longer once we enter the E.E.C. It will be a great tragedy if that is so. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, Community law takes precedence.
  Apart from my general condemnation, I should like to refer to two specific Clauses. Clause 2 is obviously the most powerful Clause in the Bill. It entails a great many obligations on this country. It may be, and obviously is, the opinion of certain right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that this is a fair price to pay, but others of us feel that the price is too great.
  I should like to take this opportunity to pose some questions which arise on certain Clauses. As I read the Bill—this is stated in the Explanatory Memorandum—payments will have to be made across the frontiers for certain social security benefits. Will the Minister who is to reply to the debate point out that it is an obligation on this country to be responsible for the medical care of the dependants of workers from E.E.C. countries who are in this country? This is of paramount importance. It is not widely known in this country. I raise the point specifically because the logic behind this regulation is that industry should be responsible for social security.
  I am particularly worried about certain of our institutions. For example, although the National Health Service is partly recompensed out of contributions, 90 per cent. of the cost comes from general taxation. If we enter the Common Market, will there be direct charges for medical services in this country? I pose this question in all sincerity because this view has been mooted generally of late by certain authoritative people.
  Dr. Elston Grey-Turner, Deputy Secretary of the British Medical Association.

  355
  Secretary of the B.M.A. Common Market Committee and official British observer to the Common Market Committee of General Practitioners, said in Luxembourg on 5th December, 1971, that our National Health Service would have to change as
  "members States would harmonise their social security systems. If Britain enters the European Economic Community, it is likely that in the long-term the system by which we finance our National Health Service will move closer to the systems that you have in Europe, which may involve many direct charges for medical services and much less reliance upon taxation to pay for their cost."
  He was reported as going on to make the point that
  "Fee-paying would be politically unpopular with the British public but, on his reading of the Treaty of Rome, the decision would conveniently be taken away from Westminster."
  This comes back to the theme which I am trying to develop: that the Bill will take out of the control of this House many of the basic rights which we cherish and which the general public appreciate highly. This will cause great consternation.
  Clause 6 of the Bill provides for the setting up of an Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce so that we can operate the common agricultural policy. It will be no surprise to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that we on this side of the House generally abhor the C.A.P. Of late, however, there have been some developments in this sphere about which we have not been able to get facts. For example, we in this country have a very balanced system of hill farming. We have divided our hills among agriculture, recreation, forestry and grouse shooting. This is a careful and probably very good balance, but all this has changed.
  The Mansholt Plan estimates that 12½ million acres within the Six must be taken out of agriculture if the C.A.P. is to operate efficiently, and that 10 million acres of that should be afforested. The Vedal Commission has recommended that in France alone 30 million acres must he taken out of acriculture and afforested. Obviously, if the regulations which we are adopting in the Bill were applied to Britain, the whole pattern of the landscape in our upland areas could change dramatically.
  356
  The upland areas of this country are generally also of outstanding natural beauty, much of which depends on the pattern of land use. Many of these areas are national parks. By our adopting the Bill, our farmers will be forced out, vast areas will be afforested and the balance for which we have fought for so long will disappear. Yet these decisions will be taken not by this House but elsewhere because Britain has agreed to the Bill. Because we believe that this is an essential surrender of sovereignty, we shall vote against the Bill.
  9.2 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: It would be presumptuous of me, as a Member from the 1970 intake, to try to comment in more detail on some of the statements about the effect on Parliament, parliamentary procedures and behaviour, conventions and tradition, as a result of entry. Nor should I get too involved in the discussion during which hon. and learned Gentlemen brought us back closely to the language of the Bill, before which the debate had veered away from the Bill into a more general debate on arguments for and against entry.
  I am one of those on this side—and on the other side of the House, although they have not yet stated their position—who welcome the Bill because it is logical—not in the sense that it will be easy for the Government to get it through the House, but because it performs its own logic in two respects. It completes the long-attenuated, long-drawn-out and often exhausting process—for the House and the country—of the ensemble debate on joining the Community, which began many years ago when the Labour Party was in Government and which has been consolidated and completed under this Government. It is logical in that sense and also because of its own brevity and concision.
  I should like to add my congratulations to the Chancellor of the Duchy and his colleagues, especially his legal colleagues, for the way in which this Bill has been constructed and presented to the House. Despite the fact that there were obviously indications at one time or another, especially last year, that a fairly lengthy Bill could, for clear reasons, be expected, I always thought it was a figment of journalistic imagination, unfortunately encouraged by hon.

  357
  Members opposite for their reasons, to suggest that we should have a truly mammoth Bill of massive proportions, of the 500 to 1,000 Clause variety, so often featured in headlines when the Common Market debate was being processed at various stages.
  But it seems that in the Bill we balance the conflict and the considerations of having a Bill sufficiently detailed to appease and satisfy, dependent upon their views, those hon. Members on both sides of the House in considering the merits of the arguments underlying the Bill, with the need for the Bill to be expedited in an acceptable and logical way in the House. In other words, my contention is that this long and great debate has gone on for so long now that, with the decision in principle having been made last autumn in the House, and with the subsequent debate which took place last month on the Treaty of Accession and all the rest of it, there has been inculcated in the British public, irrespective of their central views on the merits of the Common Market and whether they are in favour of entry, a feeling that Parliament should now get on with the job of studying and processing—processing obviously if one is in favour of it—in a logical sense, and dealing with the Bill.
  For hon. Members opposite to have suggested earlier that the brevity of the Bill will deprive them and, I suppose, some of my hon. Friends, of the chance of picking the Bill to pieces of they wish, which they have every right to do, is complete nonsense and a distortion of the powers, function and quality of Parliament. That is why when the Bill goes into Committee on the floor of the House for the line by line and word by word examination—particularly of Clause 2(4), which, unfortunately, is totally incomprehensible to me—an almost syllable by syllable analysis will be permitted to all hon. Members. That is an obligation which the Government have met fully.
  Therefore, I do not share the arguments of the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), who complained in those terms. One of the tragedies of the whole Common Market issue has been the volte farce—with an "a" and an "r" rather than an "a" alone—of some members of the Opposition. I hasten to
  358
  add that in this particular case I am refering not to the right hon. Member for Stepney but to some of his colleagues who have apparently not yet even adequately explained their change of mind on this issue. That is why my hon. Friends are entitled to logical and reasonable explanations of this change of view, or, failing that, perhaps, to ask for the support of some hon. Members opposite for the Bill as it is gradually processed through the House. At this stage that is not provocative or unreasonable. It flows from what was said earlier last year, more recently, and in the debate on the principle of entry which took place last Autumn.
  I come briefly to the argument enunciated on several occasions about signing away the rights of this country and Parliament to the Community. It has to be recognised that there are a variety of Community instruments and there are generic differences between them. It should also be recognised that the Bill is perfectly reasonable. It is not exactly an enabling Bill; that would be the wrong use of the word. But it is a Bill with precedents on the signing of treaties by this Parliament and Governments representing the people. We shall be acceding to instruments of the Community and the treaties. At the same time we shall be subjecting this country to a range of different instruments, some of which are binding in a full legal sense, others of which are binding in a sense as far as the ends of the objectives can be determined, others of which are decisions which are selectively binding or directional, as so called, and others of which are recommendations or opinions which are not binding.
  So the sum total of the process is far less sinister than many Labour hon. Members would suggest. They have tried to unnerve other hon. Members and the nation by the sinister implications of something the House should have been prepared to do anyway. The implications of our accession to the Treaty of Rome and the other treaties have long been recognised.
  I shall welcome what will undoubtedly be a lengthy Committee stage. I also add my words to the welcome accorded earlier by one or two hon. Members to the proposal of my right hon. and learned

  359
  Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to set up the ad hoc Joint Committee. It will go a long way to remove what might have been the House's continuing unease about Community instruments and how they would be dealt with. It is a proposal that I believe will be satisfactory in the extreme.
  I turn next to two points that move away from the Bill but are indirectly related to it. Bearing in mind arguments about a slowdown in the Community's economic performance, of which there are differing signs, there being more in Germany than in France, I feel that it is of cardinal importance that this country should enter the Community with an outstanding health relative to the maximum health it has experienced in the post-war period. It is moving slowly and painfully towards experiencing such growth. This country should not only logically be on the verge of a much faster rate of growth, but needs to be if the full benefits of our entry into Europe are to be achieved. Therefore, I should like the Government to spell out in a little more detail what they feel about our longer-term economic climate vis-à-vis our membership of the Community, though I realise that in the short term the approach of the Budget rules out any arguments on the narrower front.
  I return to what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said about competition policy. I acknowledge his knowledge of the subject and depth of interest in it. I support what he says about the importance of the Community regulations. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury will say something on an important aspect of the matter. If the Government are now considering the competition policy, as has been suggested on a number of occasions, but more particularly Monopolies Commission policy, how is their consideration likely to relate to the Common Market directives and rules and regulations? Have they given a great deal of thought to the question? If so, is that perhaps the reason why the recasting of monopolies legislation and the proposals the Governments are apparently to produce in due course have been held up?
  It is for the reasons I have given, and because I welcome the Bill in its present
  360
  form and content, that I was glad to have the opportunity to catch the eye of the Chair tonight.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald King Murray: The Bill is legally ingenious but constitutionally wanting, the ingenuity being Machiavellian if not Mephistophelian. I shall dwell on the constitutional aspects, but first I wish to express substantial agreement with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) who made the cogent and forceful point about the need for greater guidance to be given to our courts as to how they are to reconcile the periphery and border of domestic and Common Market law.
  I wish at the same time to adopt to some extent the sentiments expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Sir A. Irvine) who spoke with great feeling about the way in which the Bill will leech the common law of England away from this country. It would, of course, have the same effect on the law of Scotland, of which we are just as proud as English hon. Members are of their law. The law of Scotland stands in a somewhat better light in relation to this subject in view of the earlier common market which was created between Scotland and England and Wales.
  I refer, of course, to 1707 and the Treaty of Union. For Scotland, and to a great extent for England, it was essentially the creation of a common market and common economic entity with political machinery to ensure its lasting future. In that treaty provision was made by Article XVIII to this end, and it is worth quoting:
  "That the laws concerning regulation of trade customs and such excises to which Scotland is by virtue of this treaty to be liable be the same 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 thereof remain in the same force as before (except such as are contrary to or inconsistent 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 those which concern private right that the laws which concern publick right policy and civil government may be made the same throughout the whole United Kingdom but that no alteration he made in laws which concern private right except for evident utility of the subjects within Scotland."

  361
  There was a constitutional guarantee, however flimsy, that the people of Scotland were entitled to expect that nothing would be done, as for instance in this Bill, affecting the private rights and obligations of the people of Scotland except for their evident utility. It was equally made clear that if any change were made in the public law, such a change would be made openly and not by stealth and implication. That great constitutional article stands in marked contrast to this drab and uninteresting Bill.
  Mr. Powell: Is it the hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion that the Bill is consistent with Article XVIII which he has cited, and is the alteration of the law of Scotland by Community regulation in line with the limitation on its alteration contained in that Article?
  Mr. Murray: That is a problem on which I would not venture to give judgment. Indeed, it is a problem on which the courts may have to adjudicate in future. It is, however, doubtful whether one could reconcile this Bill with that important constitutional declaration.
  The Bill is wanting in regard to aspects which have been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides and I do not want to repeat the criticisms which have been voiced. However, I wish to underline the criticism that has been put with great force about Clause 1(3) and Clause 2(1). These are the encroachments by stealth on the rights of the people of this country.
  We should face the fact that what is being taken from us by stealth under these provisions are rights of vital political and constitutional importance which we at present enjoy. For example, under Clause 1(3) approval will be secured by Resolution of each House. In other words, it is by means of that formality that the Government can introduce some of the measures in the Treaty of Rome and the Treaty of Accession. This is a cursory and short procedure, an offhand way of extending the legal rules of this country. It does not compare in any way favourably with the normal procedure of legislation with which this House would normally handle such matters.
  I cannot understand why the Bill should seek to derogate so far from the sovereignty of this Parliament that it is not to adopt its normal course of legislation by Act of Parliament in applying
  362
  the provisions of the Community. I have to accept, of course, for the purpose of this argument that if the Bill is passed it will necessarily follow that we will be bound to apply the regulations of the Community, but why should we not do it by the traditional method by Act of Parliament?
  We are aware of the need to conform to the treaty if we accede, but surely the good sense of Parliament is not to be set aside and procedures that we have adopted and found useful through the centuries are not to be so lightly set aside. I cannot understand that this is a time when one would be looking for new and original procedures, but surely this Parliament of ours, of which we are so proud, has been sufficiently adaptable in the past to be prepared to change its procedures—not to derogate or run away from its procedures, but to adapt them and the legislative process to fit a new and challenging situation.
  In concluding that line of argument, may I draw attention to a point already touched upon: the fact that this House will be virtually robbed of its power to ask questions on Common Market matters, whether oral or written, because so far as I can see there is no mechanism contemplated in the Bill, and no other mechanism outside the treaty or elsewhere, which would allow this Parliament to press for factual information and to feel that it had a right to get it. This may be the most important aspect of the points I have mentioned—the procedures we use to apply Community law to this country—because although it is true that if we enter the Community the end product of our debates will inevitably be that we will have to legislate to marry our laws to those of the Community, we should in that process direct ourselves to obtaining the maximum possible information about why a regulation is thought necessary, how it has been conceived and what it implies. I should have thought we should fight strenuously in this House for that right of procedure so that we retain the substance if not the form of our present parliamentary privileges.
  Turning to a point I made at the outset, I find the Bill to be constitutionally wanting. It is not a great constitutional Statute—and that is an understatement. There have been great Statutes in our history. The Statute of Westminster was

  363
  such an Act of great constitutional importance. This Bill is one but nobody would call it a Statute comparable to the Statute of Westminster or great constitutional Statutes of the past. It fails. It has not lived up to the constitutional realities it implies; because there can be no doubt that its implications for the future are great. The portals of Brussels have been opened but instead of the British hon with a mane somewhat shorn entering, it is a constitutional mouse that has been sent to Brussels; and it is no good saying that the sovereignty which is being given up is not essential sovereignty. It is a significant part of the sovereignty of this country.
  The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) sought to draw a parallel between our accession to N.A.T.O., the United Nations and so on, suggesting that some sovereignty was given up then. That is true but it was sovereignty in a peripheral sphere, the international periphery of our being which did not involve the heart of our domestic constitutional being as the Bill unquestionably does. We are surrendering a portion of the inner core of our sovereignty because we are dealing with two aspects of the constitution, first with an economic aspect and secondly with one which is more properly constitutional.
  Certainly, we on this side of the House have always recognised that economic and political power are interdependent. We cannot have political freedom without economic power, and there can be no economic progress without political power. We separate these two at our peril. But Clause 2 makes it clear that this is precisely what the Bill does; it separates economic power from political power because the economic power is going to Brussels. Our destiny in economic terms will be based on Brussels; there can be no gainsaying that. But our political power to influence Europe is based here in Westminster. We are therefore separating economic and political power.
  One can put it in a way that this side of the House can understand very well by saying that we as Socialists doubt whether social planning of a European economy is possible from Westminster. One doubts whether it is possible without something in the nature of a responsible
  364
  European Parliament. But that is something on the horizon, far away. Many people say that it is far away and seem to regard that fact as an advantage. Advantage or not, it is clear to us that economic planning is not possible without a strategic centre of political power on which it can be based. Parliament then ceases to have control over our economic destiny and the erosion of its political power will increasingly follow and become evident. That is the economic aspect.
  I turn now to the constitutional aspect. This country has enjoyed a flexible constitution—our so called unwritten constitution—in which the ultimate safeguard for the rights of the people has not been in any text, in any written guarantee, but has rested on the sovereignty of this Parliament, not for the sake of us as Members in order to enhance our status and reputation, but to protect the people. The protection of the sovereignty of Parliament is the only constitutional protection we have, and under the Bill we are surrendering the core of that, our power to control our economic destinies. For these reasons I reject the Bill and all it stands for.
  9.27 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): In the long series of debates which the House has had on the Common Market, I am intervening for the first time at the conclusion of what one might describe as Act three, Scene one, because we had the two major debates in July and October extending over a number of days, we had a prelude to Act three in January, and we are now approaching the end of the first day of this three-day debate.
  I am sure the House agrees that the debate has been as fascinating as it is important. It has covered a very wide range of subjects. I was a little unnerved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), who said that the economists had had their beanfeast and that it was now time for the lawyers. Certainly, a number of extremely important legal points have been raised, and no doubt my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has taken due note of them. If he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he hopes to speak later in the debate.

  365
  Other matters have also been raised. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) spoke about monopolies legislation. This clearly comes within the area which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry hopes to cover. The House has already spent a great deal of time debating this issue, and it is rather difficult to raise new points. As I see it, the task before us is somewhat on the lines outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East—to go into the matter in greater depth as a prelude to the Committee and Report stages of the Bill.
  There are two particular parts of the Bill on which I would like to concentrate—first, Clause 2(3), which covers various financial arrangements required to meet our Community obligations, and, secondly, Clause 5, which concerns the question of customs duties. First of all, I want to say something about the financial provisions of the Bill, which are generally recognised to be of very great importance. These provisions are designed to cover both the transitional period and the longer-term arrangements.
  During the debate the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) stated that these arrangements had been changed in 1970 and had not been taken into account when the last Administration made clear, in February, 1970, their intention to pursue the negotiations. I should point out that these long-term arrangements were also fully explained in the White Paper, "Britain and the European Communities", published in 1970 in paragraphs 41 to 43. Furthermore the arrangements were set out very clearly in the White Paper (Command 4715), which was published in July last year.
  Perhaps I should refer to the relevant paragraphs, especially paragraphs 92 and 93 about the transitional arrangements and paragraph 95 concerning the longer-term arrangements. Paragraph 92 sets out clearly that:
  "The solution which has been reached is as follows. A percentage or 'key' has been set, broadly corresponding to our present share of the total gross national product (GNP) of the 10 countries likely to form the enlarged Community. This will represent the proportion of the budget which we should nominally be expected to pay in the first year of membership. This key will then increase marginally in each of the four subsequent years, under simi-
  366
  lar arrangements to those agreed by the Six for themselves."
  Paragraph 93 says:
  "However, we shall pay only a proportion of our nominal contribution over these first five years. The proportion will increase in annual steps."
  As to longer-term arrangements, paragraph 95 says:
  "In 1980 and subsequent years we shall be required to contribute 90 per cent. of our agricultural levy and customs duty receipts and such value added tax (VAT) (not exceeding the yield of a 1 per cent. VAT) as is necessary from each member country to close any gap between Community expenditure and Community revenues from levies and duties."
  I should like to relate these passages in the White Paper to the financial provisions in Clause 2(3) of the Bill.
  These financial provisions charge payments to meet our Community obligations directly on the Consolidated Fund, but with the possibility of placing some payments on the National Loans Fund. For example, candidates for charging on the National Loans Fund could be any loans to any other member States under the Community's mutual support scheme. The provisions in Clause 2(3) recognise and are appropriate to the nature of the Community's financing system. Taking the most important point, our commitment to provide our share of the central budget, the making available of the Community's own resources—the customs duties and levies in the first instance—virtually demands a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund. The decision to join the Community involves a firm commitment from the outset to discharge our various obligations to the Community and the member States. Such commitments can be fully expressed only by a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund, and this is what the Bill provides.
  Sir Robin Turton: Will my hon. Friend make this clear? Will they be voted in Supply or Consolidated Fund standing services? If they are under the latter, of course they will not be debatable in the House of Commons on the Consolidated Fund Appropriation Bill.
  Mr. Higgins: I will make it clear. There will be a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund, and this is what the Bill provides. The revenue is earmarked, so to speak, for the Communities from the moment it accrues. It would not be

  367
  consistent with the nature of the Communities' system to interpose a vote procedure. If I may, I will come to the question of votes. I ask my right hon. Friend to wait until I have finished this passage.
  Mr. J. T. Price: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point—
  Mr. Higgins: I am not leaving this point but continuing. I should like to come to the question of Votes in a moment. I hope that my right hon. Friend will listen to what I have to say because we are all agreed that this is a matter of very great importance.
  Essentially what are called the Community's "own resources" comprise customs duties, agricultural levies and, in principle, from 1st January, 1975, a proportion of V.A.T. up to a 1 per cent. rate. Until 31st December, 1974, the proportion of customs duties which member States have to hand over will gradually increase. From 1st January, 1975, onwards all customs duties and levies will be paid to the Community's budget. There will be a 10 per cent. rebate for costs of collection. Till the own resources system is completed by the payment of part of the V.A.T. revenue, any deficiency in the budget will be met by contributions from member States according to an agreed scale.
  Mr. W. Baxter: Would the hon. Gentleman put that into £.s.d. and give us some indication of what it is going to cost in a pounds, shillings and pence?
  Mr. Higgins: It depends on the size and shape of the budget. The hon. Member will, of course, be familiar with the package in the White Paper, going on from the part which I have just quoted. I will come in a moment to the point which he has raised. What I should like first of all to do is to complete the point I was dealing with a moment or two ago.
  There is no different degree of obligation to make the other element of our contribution to the budget—that is to say, the member State contribution which I have just referred to—which will continue till it is replaced by part of the proceed of V.A.T.—by a percentage of V.A.T. A direct charge on the Con-
  368
  solidated Fund is, therefore, appropriate as far as that is concerned.
  I should now explain to the House—and this is related to the point which my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir R. Turton) was asking a moment or two ago—what is covered by Clause 2(3)(a) and (b). Paragraph (a) provides for all other expenses incurred, other than the Community obligations to which I have just referred, to be paid out of Votes. This follows the normal procedures for Government expenditure.
  Expenses under this head would comprise a number of categories, and I should like to give some examples, if I may. There would be payments involved in carrying out in the United Kingdom the price support system under the common agricultural policy. This expenditure would be matched by payments into the Consolidated Fund by the Communities Another example would be pay and pensions to members of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce and payments to the Sugar Board under Clause 7(2).
  To take another example, there are the administrative and incidental expenses incurred by Departments in carrying out various requirements of the Bill and the treaties—for example, the administrative expenses of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce set up by Clause 6 of the Bill. Another example is payments by the Government in connection with any order made under Clause 2(2) of the Bill—for example, payments made by the Department of Trade and Industry providing for schemes which would enable us to take advantage of the right to E.C.S.C. grants.
  Clause 2(3)(b) provides for the treatment of receipts. These would all be paid into the Consolidated Fund or into the National Loans Fund if they arose out of payments directed to be made from the National Loans Fund in the first place.
  The main receipts from the Communities would be those from the budget. These would consist largely of the agricultural payments to the United Kingdom to which I referred just now. There would also be some receipts from the European Social Fund. Other possible receipts would be European Coal and Steel Community payments.

  369
  There are two other financial aspects of the Community's activity to which I should draw attention. The first concerns the European Investment Bank. As a member of the Communities we shall become a member of this. The changes to the bank's statute which enlargement makes necessary are set out in Protocol 1 of the Treaty of Accession, Cmnd. 4862, pages 77 to 81; and our obligations to the bank are covered in Clause 2(3) of the Bill.
  The bank's purposes are set out in the original E.E.C. Treaty. Those purposes were to further regional development, industrial modernisation or conversion, projects of common interest to several member States. Its practice is to raise on the capital markets of the Community the money needed for its loan operations.
  The bank has had a very impressive record. It has made a notable contribution to the Community, particularly to the development of the regions and to industrial conversion. Last year its loans and guarantees totalled more than £200 million spread over 52 operations.
  The management committee of the bank has visited London and had talks with the Chancellor. I had the pleasure of having discussions with it, and I believe the talks were encouraging. There is every reason to suppose, remembering that its objectives include regional development, that the bank will have a useful rôle in the United Kingdom.
  Secondly, I should briefly mention the E.E.C. Mutual Support Scheme—
  Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman made it clear that the payments to the European Investment Bank would come out of the Consolidated Fund provisions of Clause 2(3). Would he not agree that it is rather an anomalous situation that long-term money of this kind should be paid out of the same fund which makes the annual payments to the Community? Does he not think that they ought to be differently dealt with under separate provisions?
  Mr. Higgins: The right hon. Gentleman has somewhat misunderstood the position on the European Investment Bank. Its practice is to raise on the capital markets of the Community money which it needs for its loan operations. It
  370
  is possible that provision could be made for public funds, in which case the more appropriate source would obviously be the National Loans Fund, not the Consolidated Fund because that would run into the kind of problems to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The normal practice of the bank is to raise money independently, and it will not necessarily be involved in the kind of operation which the right hon. Gentleman appears to envisage.
  I was saying a word about the E.E.C. Mutual Support Scheme, to which reference was made in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. The E.E.C. Treaty provides for mutual support between member States in the event of a member encountering balance of payments difficulties, and a detailed scheme for medium-term support has been drawn up should the need arise. The United Kingdom has accepted a maximum lending obligation under this scheme of £250 million; that is 600 million units of account or just over 21 per cent. of the total. As I mentioned, it is envisaged that any loans under this scheme would be charged on the National Loans Fund.
  Our participation in this scheme seems to me entirely natural. It is hardly a new departure for us to be associated in a scheme of this kind since its purpose—within the Community—is very similar to the purpose of I.M.F. facilities on a wider basis. I should just add that participation in a particular support operation should the need arise is not obligatory. A member country can decline to take part, or can ask for refinancing or early repayment of a loan if it has balance of payments difficulties itself.
  Mr. Powell: Has my hon. Friend yet reached the point at which he can confirm in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir R. Turton) that, apart from the payments in paragraph (a), the rest of the payments from this country to the Community will not be by way of Votes and consequently the parliamentary principle of grievance before supply will not apply?
  Mr. Higgins: I hope I have made it clear that there are two separate aspects. The first is the obligations we owe to the Communities and the second is the various items which will be covered by the Votes for to which I have referred.
  Mr. Marten: My hon. Friend has rather galloped through his brief and it was difficult to interrupt at the right point. I would like to make a point about V.A.T. He got the phraseology slightly wrong. I think he said, "1 per cent. of V.A.T." It is not that; it is V.A.T. up to 1 per cent., which is very important because there is a huge difference in how it is calculated. Secondly, as this is British taxpayers' money, can he say what arrangements are being made to establish an Expenditure Committee of this House to follow through the expenditure in the Community? Is he aware that Professor Dahrendorf said that there is no check and it is very wasteful?
  Mr. Higgins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. If he reads HANSARD, he will find that I said "up to 1 per cent. of V.A.T."
  Mr. Marten: V.A.T. up to 1 per cent.
  Mr. Higgins: I would not wish there to be confusion on this point. As is well known, we are proposing to introduce in the Finance Bill a value-added tax. Decisions on the rate and coverage of that tax are not matters which I am able to discuss now because my right hon. Friend will deal with them in his Budget speech. I think it is quite clear from the Bill and from the White Paper what will be the position concerning the contribution to the Community's budget. I am sure my hon. Friend will find when he reads HANSARD tomorrow that there is no doubt about that.
  On the particular point which he raised, and which I think was implicit in the intervention from below the Gangway on the Opposition side, about the actual size of the Community budget, this is also a matter of great importance. The size of the budget is determined by the Community's estimated expenditure for the year in question and not by the total amount of "own resources" available. As a member of the Community we shall have our full share in all Community decisions on the level and pattern of Community expenditure, but during the transitional period our contribution to the budget will be subject to maximum limits as set out in the White Paper.
  Perhaps this can be most clearly seen in the table on page 24, which shows our
  372
  starting liability at 8·6 per cent. rising over five years to a figure approaching 19 per cent. Further limits will apply to our share of the budget in 1978 and 1979, as explained on page 5 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. From 1980 onwards, we shall of course apply the system in full. From accession we shall be able to influence the size and composition of the budget and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster reminded the House in introducing the Bill, the process of formulating Community policies is a gradual one involving full consultation with member Governments.
  Mr. Jay: As the hon. Gentleman has obviously considered these matters carefully, will he tell the House what it wants to know and has the right to know? What is his estimate of the net out-payment in budgetary terms from this country from 1980 onwards after the transitional period has ended?
  Mr. Higgins: The right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Stepney have continued to pursue the question of the ultimate size of the Community budget after the end of the transitional period. The right hon. Member for Stepney continues to play this numbers game with undiminished zest. Quite apart from all the familiar hazards of economic prediction, which were well illustrated—if I may take up the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) on economic planning—by the fate of the National Plan, it is clear that our entry into the Community will have a profound effect on our pattern of international trade which makes nonsense of quasi-scientific predictions of the likely size and share of the contribution to the central budget in the 1980s.
  It is also right to stress the point made by the hon. Member for East Ham. South (Mr. Oram) that we need to take account of the likely shift from the present predominance of agriculture in the budget. One factor here will be the further shrinking of the Community's agricultural population.
  During the 1960s, 5 million Community farmers left the land. Even if the rate of outflow in the 1970s is not rapid—and I do not underestimate the

  373
  social and environmental problems involved—this process will continue, and regional and industrial developments will play an increasingly important part in Community policies and will no doubt take their share of Community expenditure.
  Mr. Jay: If the hon. Gentleman has no idea quantitatively what the economic consequences will be, how is he so certain that it will be of advantage to this country?
  Mr. Higgins: The two points are quite separate, as the right hon. Gentleman will surely recognise. On the one hand there is the actual contribution to the budget; the other question involves the benefit which we would derive. Clearly one needs to balance the one against the other. The right hon. Gentleman is all the time concentrating on costs and not on potential benefits.
  Mr. Shore: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair to my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and myself. He says it is impossible at this stage to quantify the benefits which might accrue. We do not know this. My right hon. Friend and I are in serious dispute with the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and learned Friend on whether they have made their calculations of our contribution beyond the year 1977. We think that the result of the calculation is not a decrease in the amount we are to pay but virtually a doubling between 1977 and 1980. Why is it that the Irish Government have been able to do this calculation for 1980? Other Governments are able to do this and it is not due to any peculiar genius on their part. If other Governments can estimate up to that date, why are Her Majesty's Government unable to do so?
  Mr. Higgins: This is ground which the House has covered many times. When one remembers that the right hon. Gentleman's Government, and particularly the Department with which he was associated, were so incredibly wrong within a matter of days, let alone weeks, in their economic forecasts five years ahead, it is extraordinary the faith he still has in economic predictions. He and I know something about the difficult technical matters which are involved, and it is not likely
  374
  to be fruitful to continue to pursue this line of thought.
  Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Why does not the hon. Gentleman answer the question?
  Mr. Higgins: I have many further points to make and I want to get on with them.
  I turn to Clause 5 which is concerned with customs duties. Essentially what is planned is the elimination, step by step, of the tariffs between the Six and the new member States, tariffs between the Six having been eliminated in July, 1968; and secondly the gradual establishment of the common customs tariff around the enlarged Community.
  The timing of these two processes is not the same. Whereas the elimination of the tariffs between the United Kingdom and the Six will be done in five equal stages starting three months after accession, it is intended that our move towards the common customs tariff should be carried out in four stages starting a year after accession.
  The Treaty of Accession provides that we must progressively reduce and eventually abolish our existing customs duties on imports from the rest of the Community and align our duties on imports from other countries to those of the Community's common customs tariff. The first cut of 20 per cent. in the duties between us and our Community partners is due on 1st April, 1973. The next cut of 20 per cent. for both is due on 1st January, 1974, on which date the first move of 40 per cent. towards the common customs tariff is also to be made. The final instalments—complete abolition of protection within the E.E.C. and complete adoption of the C.C.T. against other countries—are due on 1st July, 1977. These moves towards abolition of inter-Community duties and adoption of the common customs tariff will be made by an order under United Kingdom legislation, the Import Duties Act 1958.
  Therefore, since the duties to be charged will stem from the treaties, that Act needs to be amended varying the purposes for which orders imposing duties may be made and what they prescribe. Section 5(5) of the Bill therefore amends the Import Duties Act, 1958, so as to allow duties to be imposed with a view to

  375
  securing compliance with Community obligations. Repeals of those parts of that Act which will become redundant are made in Part I of Schedule 3 to the Bill, and further amendments to the Import Duties Act are made in Part A(i) of Schedule 4 to the Bill.
  After the traditional period—that is to say, by 1978 at the latest—the rates of duty applicable to most imports into the United Kingdom will be fixed by E.E.C. regulations giving the common tariff direct legal effect throughout the Community. The regulations will, of course, apply directly in the United Kingdom by virtue of Clause 2(1). The first part of Clause 5(1) puts beyond any doubt the liability to pay these duties, which must be clear and unambiguous. The second part of the subsection nevertheless maintains a Treasury power, subject to the recommendation of the Secretary of State, to impose duties on goods outside the common tariff and not subject to duties fixed by any directly-applicable Community instrument. For example, the tariff of the Coal and Steel Community is established by decisions of the member States, which though binding on members, have to be given effect by legislative action under member States' national powers.
  So far, I have been talking mainly about the new common tariff and our movement towards it. The main components of these will, of course, be derived from the existing common tariff and the existing import duties of the United Kingdom and other new members. But there is one detailed point which I should make clear in the short time remaining to me.
  The treaty provides for special treatment for customs duties of a fiscal nature. In the United Kingdom these are the customs revenue duties on hydrocarbon oil, tobacco, spirits, and so on. With the exception of that on hydrocarbon oil, each of these duties contains a protective element; that is, the relatively small amount by which the rate of customs duty exceeds the corresponding rate of excise duty.
  The special treatment contemplated by the treaty is that the fiscal elements of these duties may be replaced by "internal taxes", chargeable equally on imports and domestic goods alike, in which event only
  376
  the remaining protective element, chargeable solely on imports, would be subject to the provisions for phased abolition and alignment as for tariffs generally. This is a point which has not been generally appreciated, and it seems right and proper to spell it out.
  There are a number of other points with regard to customs procedures which are of considerable importance but which probably may be dealt with more appropriately in Committee. Essentially what I have sought to do is to outline to the House the main financial provisions and also to comment briefly on the actual provisions of the Bill concerning customs duties.
  The second aspect concerning customs duties is not only the creation of the common customs tariff but also the progressive and eventual complete elmination of the duties between the various members of the enlarged Community. I have no doubt that it is in this area we shall derive very great advantages.
  I want, finally, to take up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East. He suggested that it was very important in joining the Community that we could create the right overall economic climate. I believe that the measures which we have taken in terms of tax reform, the reform of personal and corporation tax, and the reform of our indirect tax system and our general fiscal policy, are such that we can look forward to joining the Community with confidence.
  Moreover, we have over the last 18 months reduced taxation by more than £1,400 million in a full year, and, as my hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear a few days ago, we are now entering upon a period of sustainable economic growth where industry may reasonably expect to see our domestic markets growing at a rate of some 4 or 5 per cent. Provided that price competiveness in international markets is maintained. this should provide a firm basis for our industry in domestic markets and. I believe, a springboard from which we can enter the Community and increase our overall economic prosperity.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

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

  ROOFSEAL LIMITED, DONCASTER
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Walker: It is usual for a Member who has the good fortune to secure an Adjournment debate to express gratitude for the opportunity thus presented to him. Tonight, however, I can only express regret at the necessity to take up the time of the House to try to secure redress of a deep and serious grievance of one of my constituents. It is a necessity which arises because of the refusal of the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to discuss with me, in the privacy of his office, the matters which I now want to lay before the House, concerning which I have been in regular correspondence with the Under-Secretary, his colleagues and, indeed, Ministers of the previous Administration over a considerable time.
  Roofseal Limited of Doncaster is a small company which was created 11 or 12 years ago—
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman but, in the interests of the House and its conventions, is it usual for an Adjournment debate to be initiated from the Dispatch Box, which gives it an authority which an Adjournment debate ought not to have? I make this point in the friendliest way. I have known Ministers move to the back benches, as a former Member for Luton did on one occasion, to show that it was not an official matter. It may be unkind of me to say this, but in the interests of the House it is a point which I think should be on record.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): This is a convention of which the Chair is really not particularly cognisant. As far as the Chair is concerned, the Dispatch Box does not exist.
  Mr. Walker: I am rather pleased that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir
  378
  Harmar Nicholls) has raised this matter. It is not the first time, and I hope it will not be the last, that I have had the good fortune to secure an Adjournment debate and address the House from the Dispatch Box. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I that no seats in the House are privileged and preserved for individual Members. If I seek the advantage of the Dispatch Box, it is only to establish a degree of parity between the Minister and myself.
  Whatever the convention—and conventions are not perpetual and binding—I was saying that Roofseal Limited is a small company which was created 11 or 12 years ago by my constituent Mr. Ronald Clark, who is the major shareholder. The basis of the undertaking was to weatherproof roofs. By his skill, toil and business acumen, Mr. Clark built the company into a very successful and profitable organisation.
  During the mid-1960s the company was diversifying into property development and dealings. The financial arrangements of the company were always with Lloyds Bank Ltd. and at some stage debentures were created in favour of that bank and Royal Exchange Assurance to secure a total sum of £22,000.
  During the spring of 1968 certain events occurred which sowed the seeds of Mr. Clark's subsequent misfortunes. The first of these arose from major roadworks which were being carried out during the widening of Balby Road, Doncaster, in my constituency, where the company's offices were situated. Those works, which were being carried out by Doncaster Corporation on behalf of the Ministry of Transport, led to my constituent eventually being in dispute with the corporation about damage to the foundations of his offices which had been exposed by excavatory work. Whether wisely or not I will not judge, but Mr. Clark withheld payment of rates on his premises pending settlement of his claim. At about the same time my constituent found himself involved in court proceedings which arose from the disordered state of his matrimonial life.
  It was apparently because of those events that, in about May, 1968, Lloyds Bank restricted the company's overdraft facilities. In November of the same year, with no warning whatever according to

  379
  my constituent, the bank appointed a receiver of the company, a Mr. Hellyer of Leeds, who took over control of the affairs of the company on the same day that Mr. Clark was informed by letter of his appointment.
  I understand that at that time the capital assets of the company were valued in excess of £100,000 and there was no question of insolvency. Furthermore the company was making a substantial profit—£20,000 in the preceding 20 months of trading.
  It was from that moment, according to my constituent, that the destruction commenced of the viable and flourishing undertaking he had so painstakingly built up. According to him, the receiver proceeded to sell off the assets, which had previously been valued, at sums very much less than their market price in order to pay off the debenture holders. It is the main complaint of my constituent that those sales occurred as private transactions. There is no evidence whatever that property sold to meet the debentures was sold by public auction or publicly. This contention is supported by Mr. Clark's solicitor.
  Among the assets sold in that way were the company's offices and an adjoining petrol filling station at Balby, Doncaster. I understand that these together were sold for £25,000, but the offices alone had been valued three or four years earlier at £30,000 and the petrol filling station had been valued at £60,000. The sale of this property was never publicly advertised, nor was there any public auction, according to my constituent's solicitors.
  I should say that while this was going on my constituent was serving a prison sentence consequent upon the court proceedings to which I have referred—not for any offence connected with the company but on a charge arising out of his matrimonial affairs. It was at his request that I visited my constituent during that period at Armley Prison, Leeds. I well recall his anguish in his belief that his business was being pillaged while he was powerless to take action.
  Of course this is not something on which I would expect the Minister to comment tonight, but I had occasion at
  380
  the time to complain to the Home Office about the almost complete denial to my constituent of facilities to enable him to safeguard his business interests while he was in prison.
  Because the obstacles presented by his personal circumstances prevented him from adequately defending his business interests, it was about this time that I sought to discuss my constituent's affairs directly with the private receiver, Mr. Hellyer. All I got was a brush-off. I was as good as told to mind my own business, although I was speaking on behalf and with the full authority of my constituent.
  In reply to my letter of 23rd November last year the Under-Secretary of State—I believe it was the colleague of the Minister who is attending tonight—reminded me that Mr. Hellyer was acting on behalf of the debenture holder. He said:
  "He is primarily concerned with the interests of the debenture holder."
  The debenture was discharged with full payment on 21st September, 1969, well over three years ago. In spite of that, the receiver is still in charge of the company and is still selling its assets.
  Another petrol filling station belonging to the company was put up for sale towards the end of last year. This time the property was proposed to be sold by public auction and was thus advertised, but not before Mr. Clark had learned that the receiver had let it be known that offers of £5,000 or £6,000 were acceptable. Yet Mr. Clark had previously been offered in writing—the written offer is lodged with his solicitor—£12,000 for this property from an international oil company. The property was withdrawn on the day of the sale.
  In his letter of 10th December last year, the Under-Secretary said that the receiver, Mr. Hellyer, was not subject to the control of the Department of Trade and Industry. I have a growing conviction that he is not subject to any kind of control whatsoever. Indeed, he appears to possess unbridled power. It may well be that when the Under-Secretary replies he will say that my constituent can seek redress in the courts for any grievance he may have when the receiver finally withdraws from his handling of the company's affairs. On

  381
  present form, however, it looks hardly likely that there will be sufficient money left in the kitty to pay even the bus fare to the solicitor's office.
  That brings me to another immediate problem. I understand that the major impediment now to Mr. Hellyer, the receiver, concluding his activities is the failure of Mr. Clark to submit the necessary statement of affairs. The Under-Secretary knows that it is on this point that I have been in correspondence with him recently. As he knows, Mr. Clark has refused to sign the statement that has been drawn up because he says it is at fault in several important respects. In effect, the Under-Secretary says in his letter, "What is Mr. Clark complaining of on that score?" He suggests that the statement is prepared by Mr. Clark's accountant and that in any case, if he disagrees with it, it is up to him to make such alterations as he thinks necessary to put it right.
  I understand, first, that the statement was prepared not by an accountant appointed by Mr. Clark but by one appointed to act on his behalf during the period when he was in prison. What is more important than that, however, is Mr. Clark cannot submit a corrected statement without access to the necessary documents, and he says that these documents are distributed among different hands. Some were lodged with a Doncaster solicitor who formerly acted on his behalf and who now says that they have been lost. Some are lodged with a Leeds solicitor who acted on Mr. Clark's behalf when he was in prison and who now refuses to surrender them, apparently, because he has not been paid for his services. But the essential documents are apparently with the receiver himself and he ignores any request for information. He ignores requests by Mr. Clark, by Mr. Clark's accountant and by Mr. Clark's solicitors. Nor will the receiver's solicitors respond to any requests for help from Mr. Clark's solicitors. Indeed, I have a letter from Messrs. Saffman and Co., Solicitors acting on behalf of Mr. Hellyer, the private receiver, addressed to my constituent's solicitors, which states:
  "We are advising the Receiver to refuse to have further communication and not to reply to any further request or query from Clark."
  382
  Although the Under-Secretary says that he has no control over the receiver—and that seems fairly obvious—it is none the less the Department of Trade and Industry which has issued a threat to my constituent that he is liable to a fine of £10 per day until he signs the statement of affairs. No one is more anxious than Mr. Clark to see the statement of affairs completed and filed. He is desperately anxious to try to put back together the fragments of his business left behind after the shattering impact of the receiver, but he cannot understand why not only is every impediment placed in the way of his doing so properly and honestly, but he is being bludgeoned by the Department to acquiesce in something that is false. Nor can he understand why the Department, which disclaims any responsibility for the actions of the receiver, should none the less provide the sanction on which the receiver relies.
  I give one example of the kind of fault that my constituent picks on in the statement as it stands. Although it shows the company's former secretary as a creditor in the sum of £3,000, nowhere is there shown the company's counterclaim, made before the company went into receivership, for a sum of £9,000. It is not good enough merely to suggest that Mr. Clark make a corrective entry. Clearly he must have the necessary documentation to support that entry.
  I have by no means exhausted Mr. Clark's catalogue of complaints and, indeed, serious charges against the conduct of the receiver. They are many and they are interwoven into a situation far too complex and tangled for me lucidly and adequately to present in the course of an Adjournment debate, and I would not pretend to have the expertise that is needed to do so.
  It is a situation with which I have been dealing, seeking to assist my constituent, for more than three years. Because my remarks must inevitably reflect unfavourably upon the professional conduct of the receiver, I have been most reluctant over that period to bring these matters before the House and hence into the public view. But I have been left with no alternative if I am not to fail in my duty as a Member towards my constituent. The receiver's refusal to supply information to Mr. Clark or his solicitor or to answer their queries; the refusal

  383
  of the receiver's solicitors, Messrs. Saffman and Company, to be other than obstructive; the refusal of Mr. Hellyer to discuss Mr. Clark's affairs with me, and the Minister's refusal to accept any responsibility or even to discuss with me the imposition by his Department of a fine, which contradicts completely the long-standing, traditional relationship between Members and Ministers—all of these matters leave Parliament as the only immediate means by which my constituent may be set on the road towards redress and justice.
  The behaviour of companies and those who handle their affairs is regulated in the main by the framework of law provided by the Companies Acts. I also understand it to be the task of the Department of Trade and Industry as well as of the courts to secure observance of those Acts. Where there are allegations of misbehaviour in the handling of a company's affairs, the Minister can instruct an inspector acting on his behalf to make such inquiries as he deems to be necessary.
  The Minister has the power and responsibility to do that, and that is the action I ask of him tonight. I am asking him not to do that which he has done previously in our correspondence, which is to ask Mr. Hellyer or his representatives whether Mr. Clark's allegations are true and then present the reply as the Minister's answer. That is not the Minister's rôle. It is his job not to align himself with one of the parties, as he has done, but to stand in the middle and ascertain the truth. That is what my constituent asks. I do not ask the Minister to accept unquestioningly and uncritically what I have put to him, nor does Mr. Clark, although in the three years I have been aware of his difficulties I have never found reason to doubt the truth of what he has told me.
  What my constituent asks is that an inspector be appointed to put his allegations to the test. That in itself says much for Mr. Clark's sincerity. Unless and until this or similar action is taken, nothing will shake Mr. Clark's conviction that he has been the victim of ruthless and high-handed action by the private receiver, pursued mainly at a time when Mr. Clark was unable to defend himself or his company's affairs. What seems
  384
  beyond doubt is that the intrusion of the private receiver into the affairs of Roofseal Limited, Doncaster, marks the moment in time when a flourishing and prosperous business rapidly degenerated first into moribund inactivity and now into virtual ruin. It was a business which, furthermore, offered employment to a small but, in an area where male unemployment is running at over 9 per cent., significant number of people. Over the same period, and he believes for the same reason, my constituent has seen his assets disappear and his former wealth melt away until now he is reduced to near-penury.
  It is not for me to judge the truth of all the allegations made, nor can the Minister do so tonight. But they are so serious that if they are only fractionally true they reveal a state of affairs requiring thorough investigation. The first step ought to be to appoint an inspector, as the Minister is empowered to do by the Companies Act, to look at the receiver's handling of the affairs of the company.
  10.20 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I would not for one moment question the right of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) to raise the grievances of his constituents nor the importance of the matters which he has brought before the House tonight. I would, however, remind him at the outset of the constitutional position. Though I and others of my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry try, and have tried, to assist hon. Members with information about receiverships, it is not the responsibility of the Government to control, police or arbitrate in disputes of the sort which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
  I have always been careful in letters which I have sent on matters concerning receiverships to make it clear that I am merely trying to help hon. Members by presenting the facts to them. I point out that I am not trying to decide who is right or to take one side or the other or in any way lend the authority of Government to one of the parties in a dispute about a receivership. This is because it would be entirely wrong for the Government to attempt to do that. Receiverships of this sort arise out of contracts between debenture holders and

  385
  those to whom they lend money, and the interpretation of those contracts is entirely a matter for the civil law save in so far as there are a few areas where company law impinges on the situation.
  I wish to make it clear at the outset that most of the matters which the hon. Gentleman has raised are not matters in which the Government have or should have responsibility but are matters of dispute which can be sorted out at civil law between the two parties, the receiver and the hon. Gentleman's constituent.
  I wish to correct one point of fact. The hon. Gentleman said that the debenture had been discharged. So it has, but the preferential creditors have not been paid off and part of the terms of the debenture is that the preferential creditors' claims should be met. In addition, I believe that there is a judgment debt owing to the company by Mr. Clark. Until those obligations have been discharged the receiver is not clear of his responsibilities in the matter.
  There are no provisions whatever in the Companies Acts for the Department of Trade and Industry and Ministers therein to supervise the activities of receivers. There are, however, certain areas where we could intervene, and it is right that I should make it clear what those areas are.
  It is the duty under the law of the Registrar of Companies to see that directors supply the receiver with a statement of affairs. This duty arises under Section 372 of the Companies Act, 1948. The hon. Gentleman mentioned this and talked at some length about the difficulty that his constituent had had in completing and signing his statement of affairs. I do not know what his difficulties were. Nor is it my task to help him or interpret his duties under the law. I am merely responsible under Statute for making sure that where a statement of affairs has not been given to the receiver, the due penalties are exacted. It is for the hon. Gentleman's constituent to make sure that he is not in breach of this part of the Companies Acts. No amount of excuses or pleading is acceptable to me because I have merely to see that this part of the law is enforced. I therefore urge him to comply with the law in this respect.
  Next, it is part of my duties to see that the receiver files a statement of affairs,
  386
  when he has received it, together with his comments thereon, with the Registrar of Companies. That has not been done, but it is not the receiver's fault because he has not received the statement of affairs from the hon. Gentleman's constituent. It is my duty to see that the receiver files with the registrar his receipts and payments under Sections 372 and 374. So far as the Companies Acts go, it is the sole duty of the Department of Trade and Industry to discharge these functions.
  It is possible, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, that there could be an investigation under Section 109 of the Companies Act, 1967, into the conduct of the receiver. A receiver in a case like this is acting in order to promote the company for the purpose of receiving moneys which the debenture holder is owed, and he has a duty to run the company in the interim. If in his capacity of managing the company he were to contravene any of the provisions of the Companies Acts, or if we had a suspicion that he was not conducting the affairs of the company properly, we would have power under Section 109 to make an investigation and under Section 165 of the 1948 Act to take further action. I want to make it abundantly clear, however, that it is not right, nor is it our intention, to investigate under Section 109 every case in which there is a conflict of opinion between receivers and those who are subject to these proceedings.
  It would only be on suspicion on grounds of criminal action, or of a compound between a receiver and a potential purchaser of assets, or of some form of fraud, that the Department would feel it right to investigate the conduct of a receiver. There are no such grounds in the case the hon. Gentleman has raised. Therefore, I want to reiterate that it is wrong, and it is not our intention, to arbitrate between receivers and directors of companies on the question of who is responsible or who is right or who is wrong in any case such as this where there is dispute.
  There are some guidelines which might help the hon. Gentleman. There have been judgments whereby receivers have been exonerated for not obtaining the higher price. I refer to the dicta of Lord Justice Jenkins in the case of B. Johnson & Co. (Builders) Ltd. (1955). In

  387
  this case the debenture holders claimed that the receiver had not obtained the higher price he might have been able to obtain and the receiver was found to have discharged his duty although he had not obtained the higher price. In another case, however, that of Cuckmere Brick Co. Ltd. v. Mutual Finance Ltd., the court upheld an appeal where a mortgagee was thought to have owed a duty to the mortgagor to take reasonable care to obtain a proper price for the mortgaged property. In fact, he did not declare the fact that the property had planning permission, which would have increased its value.
  I say again that if the hon. Gentleman's constituent feels that he has a case at civil law against the receiver, he has every opportunity so to pursue it. He could take an action for misfeasance, not because the receiver has exercised a lack of judgment but because there has been either a breach of the contract or negligence or recklessness on the part of the receiver. To interpret in this case whether there has been such a breach is clearly far beyond my responsibility and is a matter entirely for the courts.
  388
  I suggest, therefore, that if the hon. Gentleman's constituent feels he has been wrongly treated in this instance, his proper redress is to the courts. I emphasise that it is not the responsibility of Ministers to interpret the law of contract as between the debenture holder and someone who has suffered as the hon. Gentleman's constituent has done in this case. The hon. Gentleman seems to claim, both in his letters and in what he has said tonight, that in some way this is a matter for the Government. I think I have made it clear that it is not so and that it is wrong to evade one's remedy at law by coming to this House and trying to make the Government intervene in a situation which arose out of a private contract between one who lends and one who borrows.
  I express, of course, all sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's constituent, but I think it is wrong that this matter should be treated as a political matter when it is a purely legal matter between the receiver and the hon. Gentleman's constituent.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Regional Development
  Regional Development
  Professional Persons (Cessation Payments)
  Professional Persons (Cessation Payments)
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  P.A.Y.E. (Overpayment)
  P.A.Y.E. (Overpayment)
  Stock Option Schemes
  Stock Option Schemes
  Trade Effluent Disposal (Allowance)
  Trade Effluent Disposal (Allowance)
  Value-Added Tax
  Value-Added Tax
  Reserve Working Capital (Common Currency)
  Reserve Working Capital (Common Currency)
  Liquid Petroleum Gas
  Liquid Petroleum Gas
  Economic Activity
  Economic Activity
  Road Vehicles (Fuel Tax)
  Road Vehicles (Fuel Tax)
  Road Fund Tax
  Road Fund Tax
  Skilled Workers
  Skilled Workers
  Prices and Incomes
  Prices and Incomes
  Retirement Pensioners (Tax Relief)
  Retirement Pensioners (Tax Relief)
  Corporation Tax (Small Businesses)
  Corporation Tax (Small Businesses)
  U.S. Dollar (Convertibility)
  U.S. Dollar (Convertibility)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Regional Unemployment
  Regional Unemployment
  Terms of Trade
  Terms of Trade
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Estate Duty
  Estate Duty
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Stocks
  Stocks
  Gross Domestic Product (Growth)
  Gross Domestic Product (Growth)
  Budget
  Budget
  Government Advertising
  Government Advertising
  Valuations (Northern Region)
  Valuations (Northern Region)
  Investment
  Investment
  Bolton Committee
  Bolton Committee
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mentally Ill Persons
  Mentally Ill Persons
  Widows (Personal Allowance)
  Widows (Personal Allowance)
  Gaming Machines
  Gaming Machines
  Profits and Earnings
  Profits and Earnings
  Walsall General Hospital
  Walsall General Hospital
  Telephones
  Telephones
  Over-80s (Pension Disqualification)
  Over-80s (Pension Disqualification)
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  Hysterectomy Operations (Southampton)
  Hysterectomy Operations (Southampton)
  Central Council for the Disabled
  Central Council for the Disabled
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Shellfish (Heavy Metal Content)
  Shellfish (Heavy Metal Content)
  Fish Fingers
  Fish Fingers
  Saccharin
  Saccharin
ENVIRONMENT
  Heavy Lorries (London)
  Heavy Lorries (London)
  New Hey Road, Huddersfield
  New Hey Road, Huddersfield
  Scrap Metal Collection
  Scrap Metal Collection
  Offensive Trades (Unpleasant Odours)
  Offensive Trades (Unpleasant Odours)
  Sports Council (Membership)
  Sports Council (Membership)
  Motor-Cyclists (Learner Training Grants)
  Motor-Cyclists (Learner Training Grants)
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Development and Intermediate Areas
  Development and Intermediate Areas
  Motor Vehicles (Total Loss)
  Motor Vehicles (Total Loss)
  Rate Rebates (Annuity Apportionment)
  Rate Rebates (Annuity Apportionment)
EMPLOYMENT
  Incomes
  Incomes
  Youth Unemployment
  Youth Unemployment
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  National Holiday
  National Holiday
  Chester-le-Street
  Chester-le-Street
  Newport, Monmouthshire
  Newport, Monmouthshire
  Leicester
  Leicester
  Employed Persons (Scotland)
  Employed Persons (Scotland)
SCOTLAND
  Public Works Programme
  Public Works Programme
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Elderly Persons (Residential Homes)
  Elderly Persons (Residential Homes)
  Secondary School Pupils
  Secondary School Pupils
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Sex Discrimination
  Sex Discrimination
  Irish Republican Army
  Irish Republican Army
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Rubery Owen, Darlaston
  Rubery Owen, Darlaston
  Electricity Industry
  Electricity Industry
  Special Development Areas (Scotland)
  Special Development Areas (Scotland)
  Training Airfields
  Training Airfields
  U.N.C.T.A.D. Resolutions
  U.N.C.T.A.D. Resolutions
  M.V. "Germania"
  M.V. "Germania"
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Bedding (Double Pricing)
  Bedding (Double Pricing)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (OFFICIAL MEETINGS)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (OFFICIAL MEETINGS)
  COAL INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)
  COAL INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)
  TANZANIA
  TANZANIA
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND
DEFENCE
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teacher Training Colleges
  Teacher Training Colleges
  Teachers (Retraining)
  Teachers (Retraining)
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Primary Schools
  Primary Schools
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Republic of Ireland (Wanted Persons)
  Republic of Ireland (Wanted Persons)
  Poland (Detained British Citizens)
  Poland (Detained British Citizens)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

RHODESIA: SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS AND DETENTIONS
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will publish a list of the names of persons in detention in Rhodesia prior to the agreement on Settlement Proposals and a list of persons released and detained respectively since that date.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, Rhodesian regulations forbid the publication of names of people held in detention. We have asked the Rhodesian authorities for a list of names, but this has been declined. The names of some of the more prominent detainees and ex-detainees have appeared in the Press outside Rhodesia, but I regret I do not
2
have information about all the individuals concerned.
At the time of publication of the Proposals for a Settlement there were 93 people in detention in Rhodesia In accordance with the undertaking given at that time by the Rhodesian authorities, 31 people were subsequently released. However, a further 5 people have since been detained, so that the total now in detention stands at 67.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, why is it so difficult for the noble Marquess to give the names of these people? If he will be so good as to refer to the White Paper, Command 4835, he will see that it says that,
"normal political activities will be permitted to the satisfaction of the Commission".
Can the noble Marquess say how the Commission could possibly be satisfied that normal political activities are in operation unless they are able to see the names of the persons who are in detention? Can he further say what implementation has taken place of the White Paper, that
"Rhodesians will be releasing a substantial number of detainees"?
From what the noble Marquess has said, the number has risen. Is not, this contrary to the undertaking given to us by Mr. Smith at the time of the settlement?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, it will be for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, and the Commission to decide whether they are sat satisfied with the arrangements made for interviewing detainees, and indeed for finding out who

3
they are. As I said in my substantive Answer, it has not been possible so far to persuade the Rhodesian authorities to release the total list of names of those persons whom they are holding in detention. With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, it is true to say that normal political activity is to be resumed, and this again is something about which Lord Pearce will have to make up his mind.
I am afraid that I have now forgotten the third point raised by the noble Lord. I should be grateful if he would repeat it.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, it was on the question of the undertaking given by the Rhodesian Government to release a substantial number of detainees.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, as the noble Lord must be aware, they have done this in the case of the 31 persons who were released at that time. The noble Lord is also obviously aware that, under the Proposals for a Settlement, as soon as a settlement is agreed a Commission will be sitting to review the cases of the other detainees. That was part of the agreement.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, since the accounts of the numbers of detainees appear to vary so alarmingly, and since Mr. Smith seems to be so extraordinarily unconcerned about the condition of the people in his prisons, and since Her Majesty's Government are still responsible for a great deal of what goes on in Rhodesia, may we ask Her Majesty's Government to take further steps to find out what the actual numbers of people under restriction may be?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, this is obviously something that we are very anxious to know. The numbers I have just given refer to those who are in detention, as it were, under the orders of the Minister. It does not take into account those Rhodesians who may be restricted under the 30-day police order, or indeed those who are restricted in detention for some reason or other, either awaiting trial or after conviction. As the noble Baroness will be aware, in his
4
broadcast the other day Mr. Smith put the number at something around 1,000.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, is not the figure of 1,000 which Mr. Smith gave in his broadcast extremely important; and should we not try to clarify it? Of these 1,000 people who were said by Mr. Smith to have been taken into custody, some of them may have been released, some of them may have been charged with ordinary offences and the remainder have been placed in detention without the ordinary processes of the law coming into operation. If Mr. Smith is not prepared to give this information to the Commission for it to be conveyed to the Government, how can the noble Marquess say that normal political activity is taking place to the satisfaction of the Commission? Will he consult Lord Pearce about this as a matter of some urgency?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am quite certain that Lord Pearce is as aware of this problem, as are the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the Government themselves. But I will certainly draw the attention of Lord Pearce to what the noble Lord has just said.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is it really a matter for Lord Pearce? Clearly he will need to have this information when he makes his report to Her Majesty's Government, but would not the noble Marquess accept that at the end of the day the Government will need to come to Parliament and to satisfy Parliament that the conditions of the agreement have been fulfilled, and that unless Her Majesty's Government have clear, specific information on this matter it will be impossible for them to satisfy Parliament to this effect? Will the noble Marquess therefore bear in mind, in the long-term interest of the Government in relation to this agreement, that this information should be obtained and made available to Parliament?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly bear in mind what the noble Lord has said. It is perfectly true that Parliament in this country will have to be satisfied. The only point I was trying to make was that before that happens it is up to Lord Pearce and his colleagues to be satisfied that they themselves have been able to carry out an acceptable test.

HEAVY FREIGHT VEHICLES ON DOVER ROAD
2.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the phenomenal increase of "juggernaut" road transport entering this country through Dover last year, and whether they realise the unsuitability of the A.2 Dover/Canterbury road for such traffic.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is aware that there was a large increase in the number of road haulage freight vehicles passing through the port of Dover in 1971. Plans are well advanced for improving the A.2 to dual-carriageway standards to meet the recent and expected increase of traffic on this route.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that in the last five years this type of traffic through Dover has increased twelve-fold? May I also ask my noble friend whether he is aware that not only is this a matter of congestion but also that many of the houses along the route are having their foundations seriously affected? In ally case I am satisfied with my noble friend's answer.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that much heavier vehicles are used on the Continent; and although they are temporarily restricted here, is it not a fact that when we enter the Common Market we shall be obliged to accept heavier vehicles than even our present-day vehicles?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I do not think that is quite right. The Common Market countries at present allow up to 42 tons. As the noble Lord and the House are aware, we have restricted our gross weight to 32 tons, and we are now in consultation with the E.E.C. bodies on this matter.
6
A final decision has not yet been reached. We have already given them our opinion and are continuing to do so.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, do these discussions include the question of preventing any further extension to width or length of vehicles beyond what is allowed under our present regulations?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the only big difference is in weight. In Britain the maximum width is 2½metres and the length 15 metres; I think that in the Common Market the length is 15½metres but there is no difference in width. So I do not think we are really at issue here.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that not only the foundations of the houses but the foundations of our economy are being shaken by this apotheosis of lorries and transport? Could we not reverse some parts of the Beeching Plan and get some of this nefarious traffic back on to the railways?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, that is a different question. If the noble Lord would like to put down a Question on that specific point, I shall be glad to provide the answer.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, my noble friend spoke of the permitted weights difference between us and the E.E.C. and said that we were awaiting the E.E.C. decision—
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: No, my Lords, with great respect, I did not say that. I said that at present the E.E.C. allow up to 42 tons and we allow up to 32 tons; and this tonnage is about to be enforced by law. We are already entering into the E.E.C. consultations on what is to be the future limit in the E.E.C. The E.E.C. have not yet made a permanent decision. We are in continuous consultation with them.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I apologise if I misquoted my noble friend, but may I ask what will happen to the roads in this country if in future the E.E.C. do not agree with our limit of 32 tons?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, they cannot make their decision without our consent. By the time

7
such a decision is made, if it is made—this is all hypothesis—we shall be that much further forward.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, can the noble Lord remind us which Government denationalised road transport, thereby probably creating the present situation?
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, following on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, if we join the Common Market do we have to conform to their regulations concerning gross weight of lorries or can we go on making regulations of our own?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we shall not conform to "their" any thing; we shall be part of the E.E.C.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, the noble Lord has only half answered the question. Will this country, Great Britain, still be able to continue making separate rules regarding the gross weight of lorries after we have joined the E.E.C.?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the rules will be made to the mutual benefit of all. If one country finds them absolutely impossible its views will be listened to with reason.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, might not the conclusion we come to be to our disadvantage?
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the amazement there will be on the part of our licensing authorities when they hear that there is no difference between 15 metres and 15½ metres? Is he aware that in the circumstances half a metre is quite lengthy?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords.

SPEED LIMITS ON HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the
8
present speed limits on heavy goods vehicles are satisfactory and are being adhered to.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government believe the present limits to be appropriate, but more experience of the 60 m.p.h. motorway limit is needed before its suitability is confirmed. Observance of speed limits generally is less than satisfactory and Her Majesty's Government will see that enforcement action continues.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that, from my experience of these heavy goods vehicles and provided my speedometer is correct, many of them exceed 60 m.p.h.? Further, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that a heavy goods vehicle carrying a load of 30 tons is an extremely lethal weapon if asked to stop in a hurry—lethal not only to the driver but to other motorists? Thirdly, may I ask my noble friend whether he, with his right honourable friend, will really impress on the police the need to check on the speed of these heavy vehicles on the motorways more regularly than they appear to do?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes my Lords. I think my noble friend's questions could really be ill the form of statements, and my right honourable friend is well aware of these matters. He is concerned with the safety angle and with the enforcement of the law, realising the effect it has on safety in general.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is a question of balancing the speed of heavy vehicles with that of other vehicles, so that the heavy vehicles do not block up the traffic but allow it to move?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords. I will look at that and if necessary write to the noble Lord.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that heavy goods vehicles are at a great disadvantage whenever they have to climb a hill, and will he seek to increase the number of lay-bys to give an opportunity for other traffic not to be impeded?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, having suffered this fate myself the other day, I am well aware of the problem, but it is a question of who goes into the lay-by to let the others pass.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the most unsatisfactory speed at the moment is the extremely slow speed of Her Majesty's Government?

VEHICLES' EMISSION OF SMOKE AND FUMES
2.50 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING: 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 how many summonses have been taken out in the last five years in the London Metropolitan police area against commercial vehicles emitting smoke and fumes beyond the statutory limit.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, during the five years, 1966–70, there were a total of 751 prosecutions in the Metropolitan Police District for unlawful emission of smoke and other substances from motor vehicles. The available statistics do not distinguish between private and commercial vehicles.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that many motorists appreciate that there are large numbers of vehicles which emit obnoxious fumes far above a reasonable limit? Would it not be easier to clean up the environment in our towns if it were easier to collect evidence and also to get successful prosecutions? Would he consider perhaps enlisting the aid of traffic wardens in reporting vehicles which are making excessive smoke? Would he also consider setting a limit to the amount of obnoxious fumes that can be emitted, just as limits have been set on the amount of noise which can be made?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the difficulty about setting statutory limits is that smoke blows away, so that
10
it is hard to measure it in any way. Heavy goods vehicles, especially those powered by diesel fuel, are the main offenders, and additional regulations, including those making it necessary for goods vehicles to have an annual test and authorising random roadside tests, were introduced by my right honourable friend, the Minister for Transport Industries, last year. There are now over 500 Department of the Environment goods vehicle examiners, and so they are available to assist the police in the way the noble Lord has indicated.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that noise also blows away; so that is no argument against trying to set a limit?
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, can the noble Lord say, out of the number of prosecutions he enumerated, how many proved successful?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords. I can do that on the basis of convictions for England and Wales, although not for the Metropolitan Police District. Out of a total of 1,857 prosecutions in 1970, 1,774 were successful.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that probably a better solution would be to have regulations for the power/weight ratio of vehicles, so that smoke emission would be likely to be very much less?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, this is a technical subject, and the fact that a Home Office Minister is speaking on it as well as my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton shows how unsparing the Government are in giving our attention to these matters. I am told that the reason why the regulations take the form they do rather than setting a statutory limit is that they aim at the causes of excess smoke. This is usually caused by faulty engine maintenance, overweighting and things of this sort, and the regulations are aimed at preventing this.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the importance of this subject, could the noble Lord tell me whether the Government are satisfied with the number of prosecutions, which seem to me to be a very small percentage of the total number of vehicles on the road?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the figure in the original reply referred to the Metropolitan Police District only. If we look at the figure for England and Wales over the same period we see that there were 11,817 prosecutions. I am advised that this does not include written and verbal warnings by the police, which often will be an appropriate form of sanction.

COAL STRIKE: TEMPERATURE OF THE CHAMBER
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether it is his intention that the temperature of your Lordships' House should remain at its present level during the crisis? It may be that the noble Earl feels that we should set an example. If that is the case, perhaps we could have some warning so that some of us may bring our overcoats, and those of us who are a little sparse on top may bring a hat.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I am not at all clear that the noble Lord is in order in this regard. I personally am enjoying the rather equable climate which we have in the House at the present time, but I will look into the matter. I think it is a subject which could properly be looked at through the usual channels.

WHITTINGHAM HOSPITAL INQUIRY
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Aberdare will be making a Statement on the Whittingham Hospital at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. It may also be for the convenience of the House if I inform your Lordships that dinners will be available to-morrow.

MALTA: PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS
2.55 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to make a Statement about the progress of negotiations for a new Defence Agreement with the Maltese
12
Government. The fourth round of talks in Rome on February 7 and 8 was attended by the Prime Minister of Malta, the Foreign Minister of Italy, the Secretary General of NATO and myself. Dr. Luns and I confirmed the financial offer of the Alliance and made other proposals relating to our requirements for a Defence Agreement, with a view to bringing to a conclusion the negotiations which have been in progress since Mr. Mintoff formed a Government in June last year. In conjunction with our NATO partners we have offered payments at a level of £14 million per annum over 7½ years. These payments, which would be conditional upon the signing of a satisfactory Defence Agreement, would take effect from October 1, 1971. In addition, the Maltese Government have been offered bilateral economic support by certain members of the Alliance totalling more than £7 million in all. We would require in return to be able to deploy our forces in Malta, for national and NATO defence purposes, and to have satisfactory arrangements for the exclusion or restriction of forces from countries outside NATO.
During successive rounds of negotiations progress has been made towards defining the terms of an Agreement. We have made clear that we would be prepared to release certain land and fixed assets required by the Maltese Government. To enable the Maltese Government to operate Luqa as a civil airport under their own arrangements at the end of a new Agreement, we have offered to train and employ at British expense the necessary number of Maltese personnel. But throughout the period of a new Agreement Luqa airport as a whole would continue to be controlled by the R.A.F., who would, as now, give full consideration to the requirements of civil aviation. We have also offered to meet the full net costs of running the Malta Flight Information Region, instead of only doing so in part as at present.
If a satisfactory Defence Agreement can be reached, the British Government would expect to deploy forces in Malta at a level that would ensure a substantial contribution to Malta's economy. But I have made clear to Mr. Mintoff that the reduction of Maltese supporting personnel has not kept pace with the rundown of our forces which began in 1967. We

13
should in any case have had to reduce substantially the present number of some 6,000 civilian and uniformed employees. The reduction now required is of the order of 1,600. To mitigate the effects of the reduction, I have shown readiness to discuss with Mr. Mintoff how the necessary reductions, over and above normal retirements and resignations, might be phased. Special terminal benefits would continue to be made available to those becoming redundant during the rundown period. In addition, we have offered to employ 200 men at our expense, at a cost of up to £1 million, to carry out the repair of historic buildings for the Maltese Government. We have also offered to bring the take-home pay of Maltese locally enlisted personnel, serving away from Malta, up to the level of the equivalent British Servicemen and to carry out an out-of-cycle pay review for all Maltese uniformed personnel.
The Secretary General and I asked the Maltese Government to indicate whether they accepted our proposals as a basis for a new Agreement. A reply is awaited. We and our NATO allies still hope that the Maltese Government will state their readiness, on the basis I have already indicated, to conclude an Agreement which would satisfy NATO and British requirements. In that event, detailed negotiations could be resumed forthwith. Meanwhile, the withdrawal of British forces and equipment continues in response to the request made by the Maltese Government at the end of last year. In the absence of new developments, withdrawal will be completed before March 31. It will accordingly be necessary shortly to issue final discharge notices to the total of about 6,000 Maltese civilian and uniformed personnel we now employ. But it remains the British Government's hope that the Maltese Government will find it possible to accept the NATO offer which we believe is fair.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for making this Statement and will, I am sure, wish to compliment him on the very conscientious effort that he has made to meet the Maltese position. May I take it from the tone of the Statement that this is the final position of Her Majesty's Government, in which case I think we should
14
say from this side of the House that the financial arrangements appear to be fair, if not generous. The noble Lord spoke of some 1,600 employees losing their positions. I hope that there will be some flexibility concerning the period during which these men are made redundant, in order that they may find new positions. My concluding remarks must be to Mr. Mintoff and the Government of Malta. I express the hope that they will accept these terms, provided of course that Her Majesty's Government bear in mind my plea for flexibility in regard to redundancies of citizens who are very loyal to this country.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I can confirm to him that, from the financial point of view, this is NATO'S final offer. Dr. Luns has made this quite clear and I think Mr. Mintoff understands it. I think that everybody has sympathy with the problems of the Malta Government over the redundancy of the civilians, and I have made it very clear to Mr. Mintoff that I am very willing to talk to him about the phasing of these reductions. The last thing that any of us would want to do is to make things more difficult for Mr. Mintoff and for the Malta Government. I would just point out, however—and I think one must remember this—that in 1967, in the days of the Government of the Party of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, it was made clear to the then Malta Government that under Her Majesty's Government's plans the number of locally employed civilians would be a great deal less than we are now proposing by March 31, 1972. So I do not think this should have come as a great surprise to the Malta Government.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, and to congratulate the Minister on the patience and assiduity which he has shown over the past few months in a very difficult situation. I agree that this is a fair and generous settlement and I only hope that Mr. Mintoff will see it in that way, because I feel that time is not on the side of Malta in this matter. If an agreement could be reached within the next day or two, or within the next week or two, it would be far better for Malta than

15
letting this matter drag on until the end of March.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for what he has said, which I think meets with the agreement of everybody in your Lordships' House. Certainly, he and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will know that there is a fund of good will in this country for the Maltese people.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, is it not quite clear from the Minister's Statement that the British Government have behaved to the Maltese exactly as they have behaved to the coal miners, in making an offer and then raising it like negotiations in an Arab souk? Is it not quite clear that, if the Maltese had been offered the sort of terms that they have now been offered, they would have accepted at the beginning?
LORD CARRINGTON: No.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, in the event of an agreement being reached with the Maltese Goverment—and may I be allowed to interpolate with a statement and say that it seems to me that the proposition coming from NATO appears to be fair and reasonable—that agreement will be of some duration, or for one or two years? Also, will the noble Lord take into account the possibility of a diminution in the strategic value of Malta? In those circumstances, apart from the financial commitment, would it not be mistaken policy to continue any obligation to Malta despite their services in the past?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, of course all these factors were taken into consideration. The length of the agreement proposed—if there is an agreement—is seven-and-a-half years from October 1, 1971; but I think one can both over-estimate and under-estimate the importance of Malta. I think I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said, that this offer which has been made by NATO is a very generous one. Fourteen million pounds annually, together with the £7 million in aid spread over the period of seven years, is a good deal more than Malta has ever had before, and I should have thought that the Malta Government
16
would feel that this was generous, and that it would be wise to accept it.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the withdrawal of our forces from Malta can be halted if a speedy agreement is reached?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if an agreement is reached not only will it be halted, but we shall start putting things back.

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a and committed to a Select Committee.
FRIENDS OF THE CLERGY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That leave be given to the Earl of Bessborough to advance his motion on Government Research and Development from Tuesday the 29th to Monday the 28th of February.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HARBOURS, PIERS AND FERRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY BILL
3.8 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been sent 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

17
Standing Order No. 43(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT 1920
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move that the gracious Message delivered on Wednesday last, signed by Counsellors of State on behalf of Her Majesty, be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move that an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty in the terms set out on the Order Paper.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for the Most Gracious Message sent on Her behalf by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother and Her Royal Highness The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, to whom has been delegated certain Royal Functions as specified in Letters Patent dated the 4th day of February, 1972, communicating to this House the Declaration made on Her Majesty's behalf that a State of Emergency exists.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented by the Lords with White Staves.

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT 1920
3.10 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE rose to move, That the Emergency Regulations 1972, laid before the House on Wednesday last, shall continue in force subject to the provisions of Section 2(4) of the Emergency Powers Act 1920. The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that last Wednesday I repeated a Statement by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announcing the proclamation of a State of Emergency as a result of the very sombre situation with
18
which we were faced arising from the coal strike. It was agreed through the usual channels that we should deal with the humble Address formally, and that we have just done. I gather, however, that your Lordships would wish to have a wide-ranging debate on the emergency with which we are faced, the Emergency Regulations and the orders made there-under. I also gather that possibly the Opposition may take the exceptional step, at least in your Lordships' House, of dividing on those regulations. That being so, I propose to cast my remarks fairly wide, although I propose to be reasonably brief.
My Lords, the regulations made under the Emergency Powers are similar to those moved on previous occasions. They vary in one or two matters, which I will mention. I would not wish to weary your Lordships by going through the regulations one by one, and your Lordships may feel that it suffices if I refer to those regulations which have a particular relevance to the present emergency, or those which are novel. As to the changes. Regulation 11 is new and gives the Secretary of State for the Environment power to exempt drivers from the statutory provisions governing their hours of work. This would enable greater flexibility to be introduced, provided always—and I emphasise this—that the drivers themselves were willing, in the movement of essential supplies. I understand that difficulty is being experienced, for example, in collecting milk for processing and distribution.
Regulation 17 is of crucial importance at present, in that it relieves the Electricity Boards of their statutory obligations to supply electricity. Until this regulation came into force, the Boards could make power cuts only if their output was insufficient to meet the demand at that time. It is now possible—and this is being done, as your Lordships are only too well aware—to make power cuts in order to conserve stocks of fuel. There are important new provisions also to which I must draw your Lordships' attention in Regulations 17 and 18, the latter referring to gas supply. A wide power of entry is given to persons who may be authorised by the Secretary of State to enter premises in order to ensure that orders under Regulations 17 and 18 are effective. I trust that your Lordships will agree that these powers

19
are necessary, particularly in order to preserve public safety where the gas supply may be in danger.
I should also like to invite your Lordships' particular attention to Regulations 21 to 24, which enable the appropriate Minister to regulate the supply of fuel. It is under Regulation 21 that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made two orders restricting consumption of electricity for advertising display and floodlighting, and for non-domestic heating.
There is one further specific matter concerning the regulations themselves on which I am aware that some concern has been expressed in some quarters. It is alleged that Regulations 31 to 35 may in some measure have altered the law relating to picketing. I can give a definite assurance that this is not the case, and I would in this context direct your Lordships' attention to the important proviso to Regulation 37, paragraph (1). This makes it clear that a person shall not be guilty of an offence against any of these regulations by reason only of his taking part in lawful picketing. Thus, nothing in Regulation 31, which deals with acts of sabotage, or in Regulation 32, which deals with trespassing and loitering, in any way alters the position of those who participate in peaceful picketing.
My Lords, I would not seek for one moment to minimise the gravity of the situation which now confronts our country. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made it clear in another place last night that even if there was an immediate resumption of work in the mines we should still be faced in the immediate future with the gravest possible disruption of our electricity supplies. As I understand the position (and as in all situations of this kind it is one which tends to fluctuate, or in which one's evaluation of it or the experts' evaluation of it may tend to fluctuate, plus or minus, almost every day, though it is of course one which the Central Electricity Generating Board is keeping under continual review) the stock situation in coal-fired power stations—and these represent some 75 per cent, of our generating capacity—is at present as follows. Today, there are something over 4½ million tons of coal in the hands of the Generating Board. Of this total, about half
20
cannot be used at the present time because of picketing and because the power stations have been deprived of supplies of lighting-up oil. Thus, there is only enough coal available at the present time for about—and I stress "about"—two more weeks of present demand. If supplies of lighting-up fuel were to be resumed, then this period could be extended by another 10 days.
In this connection, your Lordships will be aware of the reports in to-day's Press—and I have seen other reports, or a gloss on these reports, on the tape—of the National Union of Mineworkers taking action possibly against mass picketing. I would hope that in the national interest this will enable full use to be made of existing stocks of coal. In the meantime, it behoves all of us, wherever the option is in our own hands, when our finger may be on a switch that still works, to practise the most rigid economy. In this context, I should like to pay tribute, if I may, to the substantial contribution which domestic and very many commercial and industrial consumers have already made towards reducing the load on the grid. These economies have already reduced that load by something of the order of between 20 per cent, and 30 per cent. I should like to take this opportunity, my Lords, to reinforce the appeals which are already being made to ail electricity consumers that they should from now on exercise the most stringent self-discipline in order that such output as is available can be directed towards the essential services, towards the hospitals and towards those in greatest need.
In addition to the stocks at power stations to which I have referred, there are also some 4 million tons at pitheads. If, as I hope we all hope, there is a settlement and an early resumption of work, it will become of really paramount importance to move these stocks from the pitheads to the generating stations. Such action would win the nation light and heat and time On the other hand, it is regrettable that, because of the failure to maintain adequate safety measures in some pits, our rate of recovery after a resumption of work will be slower than would otherwise have been the case. Of the pits, over 200 have not been maintained in a proper state. In these circumstances, whatever our feelings may be about the rights and

21
wrongs of this dispute, I am sure that all of us will wish to pay tribute to the really enormous efforts which the supervising staff have deployed in trying to keep these essential safety measures going.
Be that as it may, I cannot, I fear, stress too strongly that whatever remedial measures are taken now, there will necessarily be a further period of restriction of supplies which is bound to last for some weeks after the resumption of work. The implication of that further restriction for the domestic consumer and for industry must be all too clear to all of us. It means, my Lords, that within the next two weeks or so there could well be further drastic cuts over large areas of the country, blacking out whole cities and giving no priority treatment to any consumer. This situation will be reached if and when the output from the coal-fired generating stations continues to fall, and the total generating output falls significantly below the level of the reduced demand. Therefore your Lordships may reasonably ask—and many people in the country are asking —why it is that we find ourselves, almost overnight, up against a position which is likely to entail not only the most serious inconvenience to the man in the street, more especially to those members of our community who are elderly or infirm, but also a situation which carries with it the gravest possible economic implications for the nation.
My Lords, I do not think it would be appropriate for me, at this moment of delicate balance, to comment on the merits of the case. Nevertheless, I recognise that there are those who, while they feel the recent offers of the National Coal Board to be good, if not generous, at the same time criticise the Government for moving too slowly and without due preparation and consultation in declaring a State of Emergency and in bringing forward these Regulations and the Orders made under them.
On the score of lack of preparation and lack of consultation, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made it crystal clear yesterday evening in another place that for the past year or so all those most intimately concerned with this matter have been carrying out a detailed examination of the steps which would
22
be necessary in an emergency of this kind. It has been said that there was no proper consultation with industry and with other consumers. My Lords, this is simply not true. Consultation has been taking place for some months now, and the mere fact that the Department of Trade and Industry was in a position at the end of last week to send out no less than 20,000 individual letters to individual firms indicating what was required of them in the present situation is evidence that this is so. And again, much though we may be inconvenienced by it, and much though we may deplore its necessity, I think that most fair-minded people would concede that, by and large, the rota system is working pretty well—in circumstances, admittedly, of extreme difficulty, but in a way which clearly does not imply lack of prior planning and preparation.
The second main criticism levelled in this context on the Government is that we moved too slowly in asking Parliament for these crucial emergency powers. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary explained yesterday how wide and deep these emergency powers are. A glance at the Regulations will suffice to show that this is in fact the case. I submit to your Lordships that no Government would go to Parliament for such powers unless and until they were completely convinced that theme was no other option open to them. But, my Lords, it had been our hope, certainly during this past week or so, that it would be possible for the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board to conic to an agreement on the substantially increased terms offered by the Coal Board. As I said in cur debate two weeks ago, it was our hope that early agreement could be reached on a settlement fair to the miners, fair to the Board and fair to the community as a whole. I am quite certain that for the Government to have asked for these sweeping emergency powers on the eve of this possible negotiation would have been held by many—wrongly, but perhaps understandably—as pressure and provocation. I concede that these are difficult areas of judgment, but it was our judgment that earlier action might well have nipped in the bud that possibility of settlement that still, unfortunately, eludes us.
Nevertheless, my Lords, I would grant that in one respect we must agree that we did not perhaps take as stringent and pessimistic a view of the situation as events have shown to be justified. No one, I think, could have fully anticipated the extent and intensity of the picketing, and the degree to which this picketing would affect the ability of the C.E.G.B. to generate the power which the nation needs. In view of the considerable concern and extensive publicity which has been given to picketing in this emergency, your Lordships will no doubt wish me to say something about it. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in another place, peaceful picketing is lawful, and as long as it remains peaceful it may extend beyond the movement of coal to the movement of other commodities. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that in this dispute the extent of picketing has been unparalleled in recent years. Most of this picketing has been peaceful and lawful, and I am glad to say that the National Union of Mineworkers have made it crystal clear that they are opposed—as I am confident every single Member of your Lordships' House is opposed—to the use of violence and intimidation in any degree. It is of course difficult to judge—you can pick your eyewitnesses, and you can take your choice—where intimidation begins and where lawful picketing ends. Nevertheless, there have clearly been instances of intimidation, of picketing which is demonstrably not peaceful and of illegal picketing.
I know your Lordships recognise that in a situation of this kind the duty of the police is one of very great delicacy and difficulty. On the one hand, they have a duty to ensure that the highway is not obstructed, that law and order is maintained, and that those who wish to go to work are not forcibly prevented from so doing. Equally, they have a duty to ensure that those who wish to dissuade peacefully other persons from going to work or from delivering supplies are entitled so to do. In a situation of this kind, when tension and tempers may be high, this person or that person may possibly make an error of judgment. But, my Lords, I am confident that this House would agree that, by and large, our police forces up and down the country have, as we have learned to expect from them
24
in good times and in bad, carried out their duties impartially and with sound judgment. I know that this was a matter which was worrying your Lordships when we last discussed this strike. Some noble Lords asked me to represent their concern to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. They would doubtless have noted that he has brought to the attention of the police the representations which were made to him recently by mining Members of another place, that there should be close liaison between the police and the representatives of the N.U.M.
I trust that your Lordships will acquit me of in any way minimising the gravity of the situation with which we are confronted. There is all the distress and discomfort which the denial of light and heat involves for all of us. For some of us it may perhaps be no more than a frightful nuisance. But for those of us who are sick or infirm, or old, it can mean very great hardship. Again, there are the crippling effects which the present shortages of power will have on our economy. It will entail acute difficulties for many firms, and for some firms it could well, I fear, mean that they will go out of business. It will, at least until we can all get the economy moving forward again, mean lower profitability, lower investment and, therefore, a delay in that industrial recovery and economic resurgence which is, I believe, now ours for the winning. It will almost certainly involve adding some millions, I hope very temporarily, to the many who are already unemployed. All these, my Lords, are tragic effects of a tragic dispute which we can no doubt explore further in our debate to-morrow. But there are two other side effects on which I wish, in conclusion, to touch.
The first is that nothing has made me more unhappy about this strike than the increase in social tension within our nation which it has occasioned. And, returning yesterday from leading an inter-Party Parliamentary group on a short trip overseas, I must frankly say to your Lordships that I have been worried at the shadow which this dispute and its side-effects cast on our reputation and our standing abroad. Feeling these matters as I do, I can only express the hope that with the appointment of the Court of Inquiry under the noble and learned Lord,

25
Lord Wilberforce, will very soon come a return to work and a settlement. I had hoped that the return could precede the final settlement, but this is not ground on which I wish to tread this afternoon. However, I cannot refrain from saying that, given the undertakings extended by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment, and by the National Coal Board, such a return in the very near future, if not now, could not be disadvantageous to the miners and could only be to the advantage of the community as a whole of which they are very much members.
My Lords, I hope that I have not dealt with these Regulations too cursorily. I hope, too, that this debate, like our last debate on the coal strike, will be conducted in such a way as to increase the chances of that early settlement which the nation so desperately needs. I hope, too, that in the final analysis noble Lords opposite will not press this issue to a Division. Whatever they may feel, whatever any of us may feel, about the rights and wrongs of this issue it is surely, clear beyond peradventure that these Regulations are now necessary. Certainly any member of your Lordships' house who wishes to argue that they are overdue is not in a position to oppose their confirmation now. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Emergency Regulations 1972, laid before the House on Wednesday last, shall continue in force subject to the provisions of section 2(4) of the Emergency Powers Act 1920.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
3.32 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, like the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal, I propose to be reasonably brief and certainly do not intend to discuss the Regulations in detail, for they appear to me to show, in the main, the well-established precedents for Regulations of this sort and clearly are the kind of Regulations that one would expect to be laid in the circumstances of the emergency which is existing in this country. With the noble Earl, I would pay tribute to the restraint exercised by the police when they have had to face men who are angry about things which affect them very deeply. I would support also his statement that picketing has in the main been peaceful. I hope that it will be peaceful from this
26
day onwards; but I sincerely hope that we shall not have picketing for very much longer—that is, of course, in connection with the dispute we are now discussing.
I congratulate the Government on one thing; that is, on securing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, to head the Court of Inquiry into this disastrous dispute. He, I am sure, is acceptable to both sides, for his impartiality was amply demonstrated when a year ago he chaired the Court of Inquiry into the electricity supply dispute. The Report of that Court made it quite clear to me that the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues then were not by any means creatures of the Government. Neither did the Court headed by the noble and learned Lord fall over itself to placate the trade unions. The facts, the circumstances, of that dispute and everything about it were most carefully examined; the resulting Report was recognised as fair and just and the dispute was resolved. We can, I think, confidently await the outcome of the deliberations of the present Inquiry. I am hoping that the Court will be able to present its Report in a much shorter time than it did in connection with the electricity dispute which I have mentioned. In that case, the Court of Inquiry was appointed on December 31, 1970, and did not report until February 5. We cannot afford to wait a further month and a few days for the Report of the Wilberforce Court of Inquiry; and I certainly welcome the statement made by the noble and learned Lord that we can expect them to act expeditiously in their consideration of the matters which are now before them.
My Lords, from this Box I am not going to disagree with the decision to advise the powers-that-be to declare that a State of Emergency exists, for the obvious reason that a state of emergency undoubtedly exists and is probably the most serious (excepting for the years of the 1939–45 War) since the year 1926. We have arrived at a serious moment in the history of this country. It was reported yesterday that 800,000 men were laid off; because of this situation, 800,000 men did not go to work yesterday. The production of those men has been lost to the country and lost to us all. It is suggested in one newspaper, I see, that the figure of 800,000 may be an underestimate; and when that figure is added to

27
the massive figure of the existing unemployed it means that some 2 million people were qualified for the dole yesterday and the loss of production was so great as to be in my opinion positively catastrophic. The hardship is enormous and will continue to be enormous until this dispute is settled and normal working is resumed; that is, if, for so many people, normal work can ever be resumed. Clearly, many of our industries, and particularly the smaller ones that are balanced on a knife-edge, will find that these power cuts will tip them off their precarious balance and never again will their doors open. This I fear may be the case. I have heard such reports from the West Midlands and from my own part of the country, South Wales, and I imagine that what applies in those areas applies equally in many parts of the country where we have this unhappy situation. Workers in some of these industries look forward to a very bleak future indeed because this crisis may tip those industries off the balance which has previously kept them alive—even if only just alive.
My Lords, it is—it must be—part of the function of Parliament to examine the failures of the responsible Government and to show the public where the blame lies for permitting the drift to this appalling situation. What we have seen over the past few weeks has been a decision by the responsible Government to stand back and hope that the market forces would play upon the situation and produce a settlement. Nothing of the sort has happened. The tragic result of that miscalculation is upon us to-day: we have these Regulations, as we had that Humble Address, before us. The Government seriously miscalculated the mood of the miners and miscalculated, too, the mood of the unions outside the mining industry; namely, the transport workers, the workers on both road and rail. They should not have miscalculated in that way because their statement had been that they unequivocally supported the miners' claim for justice in their dispute with the Coal Board. The Government also miscalculated the length of time that the electricity industry could continue to keep their plants running on the existing coal stocks. As a result of those miscalculations, the Government failed to
28
impose fuel rationing in the early weeks of the strike. The result has been that there are now barely two weeks' supply of coal to permit the present limited electricity consumption.
Not only did the Government mismanage the supply of fuel available but although the supplies were fast being exhausted they made no attempt to ration electricity supplies. Last Thursday power cuts had to be enforced because there were no longer enough stations working to meet the demand, but it was left until Friday before official rationing came into being. What sort of preparation had the Government made to meet that situation? The noble Earl told us that they had had some forms printed and some letters ready to send out. That was not enough. Is it not the case that the decision was announced and sprung upon industry in such a way that industry itself had not been able to make the necessary preparations? No wonder The Times said on Saturday last:
"Millions of workers will be sent home next week as industry and commerce begin to implement the Government's emergency orders. There was confusion throughout the country yesterday as companies tried to sort out the meaning of the orders. Mr. Campbell Adamson, Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry, gave a warning that industry was facing 'a very serious situation'. He had not expected such severe measures."
He—the Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry—had not expected such severe measures. Why was he not told? Why was he not consulted long before Friday last?
In the same article it was later stated:
"In all sectors of industry and commerce confusion over the effects of the Government's orders was mixed with anger that the cuts had been forced on the country without sufficient consultation."
The only people who could really consult industry were the Government of the day, the people who ought to have known what the situation was, the people who surely ought to have been advised by their officers and to have taken a decision which would have ensured that they did in fact consult the people who complained in The Times and elsewhere that there had not been sufficient consultation. The anouncement of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on Friday last came as a shock, as Mr. Adamson makes clear in the words that:
"he had not expected such severe measures."

29
The blame for mishandling the whole situation must to some extent be placed fairly and squarely on that Minister's shoulders. Everything one reads and everything one hears seems to indicate that no meaningful consultations had taken place. And we read this morning that only yesterday did Sir John Eden, Minister for Industry, see Sir John Partridge to discuss the situation. The report in this morning's Daily Telegraph tells us:
"Sir John Partridge, President of the Confederation of British Industry, and Mr. Campbell Adamson, Director-General. yesterday discussed the power crisis with Sir John Eden, Minister for Industry.
"They asked that the three days a week of electricity supplies allowed under the Government's measures should be consecutive so that industries operating 24-hour processes or 12-hour heat treatment cycles could benefit.
"The C.B.I. chiefs also pressed for changes in the timing of cuts. 'The cuts are at present arranged on a basis which does not fit into the normal shift system', said a C.B.I. statement. 'We also pressed for more information to be provided so that many of industry's uncertainties could be dispelled.'"
Surely these are matters that ought to have been the subject of negotiation and discussion three weeks ago, and certainly not later than the date upon which it became clear that the transport workers and the railwaymen were solidly behind the miners. They could see what was coming. They must have been able to foresee it; but they did nothing. They were inactive. They hoped that something would turn up, instead of making preparations of the sort that any Government ought to make in these circumstances. At last the Prime Minister enters the field, and I see it is reported that he is to see Mr. Victor Feather and leaders of the Confederation of British Industry to-day. In the worst crisis to confront this country since 1926, the Prime Minister is to see the leaders of industry some six or so weeks after the crisis began—four days after the delayed announcement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry of the shock cuts to be made in electricity supply for industry. It just was not good enough and it is not good enough for a Prime Minister and a Government of this country to behave in such a fashion. Neither was it good enough to leave it so late in appointing a Court of Inquiry in the case of the dispute which is the cause of this crisis.
30
Mr. Carr must, with the advice of his excellent officers, have known that this dispute was not going to be settled by negotiations early on: the sides were too far apart. But he, like the rest of the Government, hoped that something would turn up. The Government were warned. time after time. The speeches of my noble friends, Lord Blyton and Lord Taylor of Mansfield on January 31—men thoroughly versed in the industry, with a feeling for it—gave an indication to this House and surely to the Government of the day of how the miners felt. The efficiency of the picketing of the, miners added to the writing on the wall, but the Government did not heed. The noble Earl, the Lord Privy Seal, did his best to excuse the failure of the Government, but I must say that he did not convince me. I doubt if he convinced the House, and I am certain that he would not convince the leaders of industry. The Government are to be indicted on the grounds of failure to take adequate steps to settle the mining dispute, failure to appreciate the rapidity with which the disastrous cuts in electricity supply would be upon us, failure to bring industrial leaders into consultation when rationing became inevitable and failure to ration fuel supplies weeks ago.
The whole history of this crisis and its development is one of incompetence, mismanagement and a failure to safeguard the country's interests. As such, my Lords, we shall exceptionally—and I use the word "exceptionally" deliberately—vote against these Regulations. On Thursday last we had decided not to vote, but the announcement towards the end of last week and the total failure of Ministers to reply adequately to the charges of my right honourable and honourable friends yesterday in the other place has forced us to decide to register our profound disapproval of the handling of this crisis by this Government.

WHITTINGHAM HOSPITAL INQUIRY
3.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ARERDARE): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, and with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, perhaps this may be a

31
convenient moment for me to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is making in another place on the Report of the Inquiry into Whittingham Hospital. The Statement is as follows:
"Allegations of ill-treatment of patients, fraud and maladministration at Whittingham were made in confidence to my predecessor in 1969. These were followed by a special audit investigation and inquiries by the police. Shortly after the police inquiries were completed a nurse was tried and convicted of manslaughter of a patient. As soon as I was free to do so after these proceedings I set up the Committee of Inquiry, which made its report to me early in November. Publication of the Report has been delayed while charges against two other nurses, on which they were both acquitted, were before the courts.
"The Report is very disturbing. It is highly critical of standards of medical and nursing services in some parts of the hospital, particularly for longer-stay patients, and of the management. It also criticises the Manchester Regional Hospital Board, and to some extent my Department also. With a few qualifications, which are not however central to the main issues, I accept the conclusions and recommendations.
"The Report assesses Whittingham as a hospital of wide contrasts and an extreme example of a hospital which has failed to keep up with the times. Side by side with some good modern services, it found in the long-stay wards evidence of old-fashioned methods, inadequate treatment and rehabilitation, poor buildings and insufficient medical and nursing staff. The Report severely criticises the medical and nursing administration, the management structure and the way these worked; it describes the result as a hospital with day-to-day tactics but no overall strategy. The Committee of Inquiry believe that in these conditions there have been instances of ill-treatment and large-scale pilfering by some members of the staff and the further evil of suppression of complaints about such practices when made by junior staff.
32
"As the House knows, I have set up a Committee to review the procedures for dealing with complaints in hospitals and I have arranged for this most distressing aspect of the Whittingham Report to be brought to their attention.
"The Report apportions a share of the blame for the general state of affairs at Whittingham to the Regional Hospital Board who, while pioneering the establishment of psychiatric units in general hospitals, did not adequately recognise the needs of elderly long-stay patients, which led to dual standards of care. I accept that my own Department, as well as others, may not have been sufficiently alive to this danger in earlier years. Our present policies take full account of it.
"The Report recommends that all members of the Whittingham Hospital Management Committee should be invited to resign and the Committee reconstituted. It also recommends complete operational integration of the medical and nursing services at Whittingham with those of the psychiatric unit at Preston. Such integration is undoubtedly most desirable, but in my view it is doubtful whether it can he achieved satisfactorily without amalgamating under a single Hospital Management Committee the hospitals at present in the Whittingham and in the Preston and Chorley groups. The Board have already started local consultations on proposals for amalgamation. The Chairman of the Whining-ham Committee resigned in December on grounds of ill-health, and four other members have resigned in the course of discussions of the proposed amalgamation. With my endorsement the Chairman of the Board is inviting the remaining members to resign so that a reconstituted Committee can be appointed with amalgamation with the Preston and Chorley group of hospitals in mind at an early date. The new Committee will need to consider the many detailed recommendations in the Report for improvements at Whittingham itself. There have already been important staff changes.
"This Report highlights two of the most important problems facing the Hospital Service to-day: the proper

33
care and treatment of longer-stay and elderly patients in large isolated mental hospitals, and the proper planning of the transition from services based on such hospitals to services based on departments in general hospitals. I have asked all Boards to review their services for longer-stay mentally ill patients, looking particularly at outmoded attitudes, allocation of staff, and at management policies and organisation. Each Board is also now working out and discussing with my Department plans for the restructuring of their services for the mentally ill; these will provide for a properly organised transition to services based in general hospitals, and improved standards in the old mental hospitals until they eventually close.
"It would be wrong to jump to general conclusions from the indictment in this Report of some parts of one hospital. There have been enormous improvements in the last twenty years in nearly all psychiatric hospitals. The great majority of staff, at Winningham as well as elsewhere, work with patience and devotion, often in difficult and unsatisfactory conditions, which we are now making great efforts to remedy.
"I have referred in this Statement to the main points which arise from the Report. The Command Paper includes a Foreword I have written which contains similar comments and also refers in more detail to the recommendations addressed to my Department and to the Regional Hospital Board; action on most of these has already been taken or is under way.
"The House will, I am sure, be grateful, as I am, to Sir Robert Payne and the other members of the Committee for the time and effort they devoted to their Inquiry and to producing this forthright and constructive Report. Ever since I have been in office I have been continuing the theme of my predecessor in concentrating on improvements in this and related fields where they are most needed. The House can be sure that the lessons of this Report will not be forgotten."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
3.56 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place, especially as I am only too conscious that this was neither an easy nor a pleasant task in view of the very grave and extremely disturbing nature of the findings of the Payne Report. Clearly, your Lordships will wish to read and study this Report in some detail and with very great care. The 14 allegations of ill-treatment and dishonesty listed in paragraph 41 of the Report which were found to be largely justified by the evidence are such that all must agree that a very serious position has been revealed in this particular hospital.
I will at this moment of time confine myself to asking the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, two or three questions on the Statement he has just made. First, may I ask him if he is in a position now to tell the House the long-awaited out come of the protracted discussions his right honourable friend has been having on the appointment of a Health Commissioner? May I again remind him of the recommendations of the Committee which inquired into the events at Farleigh Hospital about which I reminded him only last November in our debate on the reorganisation of the Health Service; namely, that
"a Health Commissioner, given the widest possible powers, should be appointed to meet public anxiety about the investigation of complaints in the Health Service".
This anxiety—and I think I can speak for all of us here—is certainly not lessened by this latest Report. The matter is now extremely urgent. I appreciate that in paragraph 5 of the Statement the Secretary of State refers to the Committee he has set up to review procedures for dealing with complaints in hospitals. But this is quite a separate matter. We know that the complaints procedures need to be speedy, effective and efficient; but the additional need for an independent Health Commissioner to investigate complaints is of prime urgency and importance.
The second question I should like to ask the noble Lord is about this very real problem of pocket money. The Report finds that there was abuse of patients' pocket money—"pilfering if not

35
more organised corruption". I should like to ask the noble Lord what progress his Department has made with the proposal that I put to him last April: that patients in long-stay hospitals who are eligible as of right for pocket money should be paid this direct through the Supplementary Benefits Commission's procedures in the same way as is done for all other eligible patients in general hospitals. I believe that the time has come to remove this long-standing and unjust anomaly. At that time the noble Lord assured me that his right honourable friend was giving serious consideration to the question and I suggested to him that schemes of this kind should be progressively introduced. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, supported me in this. May I ask, if this proposal has been taken seriously, what progress is being made; and could it be applied to the situation at the Whittingham Hospital where there was gross abuse of patients' pocket money entitlement?
Finally, the noble Lord has given us to understand through the Statement that his right honourable friend accepts in full the recommendations of the Report of the Payne Committee. May I suggest that consideration should be given to inviting the Hospital Advisory Service to assist the new Hospital Management Committee which is now to be appointed to implement the recommendations of the Payne Committee as quickly as possible.
4.0 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for making this very disquieting Statement. I do not want to say a great deal about it, but I will study the report. It makes one wonder once again whether conditions rather like these may exist in some of the other large mental hospitals in the country, particularly those taking care of the elderly who are there for a very long time. One has been told in the past that it will be possible to shut down these hospitals and to treat the patients in the community or elsewhere, but that is going to take a very long time.
I associate myself with the two questions which the noble Baroness has asked about the appointment of a Health Commissioner and about some kind of
36
inquiry regarding the pocket money which these mentally disturbed patients are allowed. I know what an enormous amount of very good work is done by all members of the staff in these very overcrowded, uncomfortable, inconvenient hospitals, and one would not like an occasion such as this to pass without saying some kind word about those who work in the psychiatric world.
4.1 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for the way in which they have received this rather long Statement. May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, that I am afraid I cannot at the moment relieve her anxieties about a Health Commissioner. I do not think she would expect me to do so as a result of this Statement. I can, however, assure her that this matter is under the most careful and detailed consideration at the moment. As my right honourable friend has said, he is consulting with the medical profession. On the question of pocket money, I can only repeat that we took full account of what the noble Baroness said in our debate here, and we are also looking at this matter. This was an unfortunate occurrence in this hospital. One might wonder how it could have occurred; but auditors have not in the past been expected to examine the control of cash in the wards where much depends on the relations between the medical and nursing staff and patients and on a judgment which an auditor cannot make of the capacity of the patient to manage his own affairs. The whole question is under review. The noble Baroness also asked me to draw the attention of the Hospital Advisory Service to this matter. I will certainly do so although, as she knows only too well, they are an independent advisory body and make their own decisions.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, particularly for the kind words he said about the staff who work in these hospitals. This was mentioned in my right honourable friend's Statement. We do appreciate the valuable work which the vast majority of them do.
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that this is not

37
the first time that there have been complaints of scandalous conditions in some of these long-stay hospitals and on investigation the complaints have been fully justified, does not the noble Lord think that the time has arrived when we should have a national survey of these hospitals and not wait, as we have been doing, for complaints to reach such a pitch that the Government have to step in and investigate the conditions and then, as now, find them fully justified? Everyone, including the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, knows that these old places invite all kinds of abuses. One knows about them; one realises that the appalling conditions of nursing and so on do not necessarily attract the best people to do the work. Will not the noble Lord therefore seriously consider having all these complaints investigated and so anticipate any further complaints of this character?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful for the suggestion of the noble Baroness, but we must not forget that we are dealing here with matters and conditions that operated some time ago. As a result of the initiative taken both by the previous Secretary of State and the present one I think that the conditions are now very much improved in these long stay hospitals. The other effective instrument now available is the hospital advisory service, which to some extent is the kind of thing the noble Baroness is asking for, a body of independent people to report directly to the Secretary of State on conditions in mental hospitals, and now also hospitals dealing with old people.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I feel I should say one word on this very tragic occasion. With the noble Lord, Lord Amulree—and I know that my noble friend Lord Aberdare would agree—may I say that the great majority of nurses and all who work in hospitals give the greatest wonderful loving care to their patients, and I should not like it to be thought that I should sit in this House without paying that tribute. I have not yet had a chance to read the report, but may I ask my noble friend whether there was by any chance—and I do not mean this in a difficult way at all—any criticism of the medical side in this one hospital? There would appear to be no mention of that but a good deal about the nursing. I think this is important. Perhaps my
38
noble friend could just say whether there was any such criticism.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Perhaps it would be best if he reads the report. Indeed there was criticism of both medical and nursing administration.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I would also take the opportunity of that king the noble Lord for reputing this Statement and paying tribute to the devotion of the vast majority of the nurses engaged in the care of long stay mental patients, and adding a word of tribute to the energy with which his right honourable friend seems to have followed up the publication of this report. Since the Manchester Regional Hospital Board bears some degree of blame for the existing conditions in this hospital, may I ask whether any changes have taken place or are contemplated in the personnel of the Manchester Regional Hospital Board? The local hospital management committee have been invited to retire as whole. Have any individual members of the Regional Hospital Board been invited to retire or is it intended to inject some more active members into this Hospital Board who will concern themselves with the state of affairs in this and other longstay mental hospitals? Would it not allay local uneasiness to some extent if something of this nature were done?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I would advise the noble Lord to lead the report. The recommendation of the Committee was that the hospital management committee should be asked to resign, and although certain criticism was made of the Regional Hospital Board I do not think it would be appropriate to go so far as the noble Lord was Suggesting, to replace anybody.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, although I have not had time to read the report there are two questions I should like to put to my noble friend on one aspect which I have studied. First of all, has any action been taken with regard to visiting hours? The report of the restrictions on visiting hours se ms to me to be a particularly disturbing aspect. If nothing has been done could something be done quickly? Secondly, there is mention made of a recommendation to sell some of the market gardens. Many of these hospitals do not possess such

39
valuable assets. Can my noble friend say anything about what is being done or is contemplated on this score?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I cannot give him a straight answer on either of those questions. They would be matters for the new hospital committee, who I am sure will pay due attention to the recommendations of the Committee.

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT 1920
4.10 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion to continue in force the Emergency Regulations 1972.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, if we may now resume the debate on the Emergency Powers I would first of all take up the reference made by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to the concern which he felt, and which many of us share, about the shadow that has been cast on our standing abroad by this serious dispute in the country. But, equally, it is only right to say that it has been a matter for some congratulation by reason of the most public-spirited manner in which the nation has responded and has accepted in a remarkable way the sacrifices which it has been called upon to make. In fact, somebody said to me the other day that it is almost like getting back to wartime conditions; and we know what that means, when London and the big cities get down to it.
I do not wish to range widely to-day, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, wished to do. I do not want to cover the whole subject, and I do not want to repeat the kind of debate we had on January 31. I do not wish to say anything which might adversely affect the propects of an honourable settlement of the miners' dispute. The Court of Inquiry, with commendable speed, is at work, and I do not want to jog backwards on this occasion. There will be occasions when we should look in depth at the gross miscalculations which appear to have been made in many quarters and try to learn the lessons of the situation in which we find ourselves.
There has been up to now a very great deal of sympathy with the miners' case; and particularly with the case of the
40
lower-paid worker in the mining industry. We support that. But we must not lose sight of the other horn of the dilemma; that is, what is best in the national interest. My noble friend Lady Seear said in the debate to which I have referred, held about a fortnight ago, that any settlement within the figures demanded by the miners is bound to trigger off demands for similar treatment from many other industries, and we shall then get back to a very uneasy square one. It might have been possible to treat the miners' case as a special case at the beginning, and to regard it as something which should not be followed by other industries; but we have been through this problem of inflation and what triggers off other inflationary demands if the norm is substantially increased in any one particular claim. As I say, I do not want to go into the merits of that. I do, however, want to demonstrate that while we still have very great sympathy with the miners' claim, it has to be looked at against the interests of the nation as a whole. I do not believe that any section of the community is entitled to inflict on the rest of the nation the sort of damage to the economy which we are facing at the present time. I say this with all sincerity. There comes a moment of time when the nation—and that is the Government—has to say: "Enough, and no more."
What concerns me as a Liberal is the way in which our picketing practices seem to be taking us down a very slippery constitutional slope. I believe we may get to the point where in handling demonstrators and pickets we shall undermine 'our traditional standards of law and order which are respected world-wide and are fundamental to the exercise of real democracy. I believe that we have seen a serious erosion of the rule of law. If I may say so to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, I think he gave the impression, which is uncharacteristic of him, of a certain amount of complacency about picketing. It may not have been intentional. But there are not just a few instances. I believe that the way in which the picketing, which we dislike and which worries us, is developing is pretty widespread. It is not just one or two instances here and there. I believe that the right to peaceful picketing is an essential part of our general philosophy of

41
freedom; it has been hard won, and we must preserve it. But, equally, the right of the citizen to be protected by law, and the enforcement of the law to prevent violence, pestering or molesting, is a fundamental part of our general philosophy of freedom of the citizen. It is with the protection of these freedoms that I, as a Liberal, am particularly concerned. That is why I hope that Government will clarify the situation much further than they have done so far in the course of this debate.
I was frankly disappointed that the Home Secretary in another place yesterday, and the noble Earl the Leader of the House to-day, were not really specific about points which are worrying many people to-day. For instance, what are the instructions to the police in cases where, patently, pickets have molested and used violence on workers entering National Coal Board premises—for example, in Doncaster, and elsewhere? I do not think there is much doubt that there was pestering. People were spitting upon these young girls going in, and all the rest of it. What happened? What charges have been preferred? If charges have not been preferred, what is the philosophy behind not preferring charges in this case? Secondly (and this I do not understand from what has been said by either the Home Secretary or the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe), what is the law concerning the picketing of third-party industries, particularly when this results in supplies not getting through? I can quite understand, and support, the right of a reasonable number of pickets to persuade by peaceful means their fellow workers in the same industry. But what is the position when miners picket a power station and prevent supplies of essential commodities, such as hydrogen and special oils, from being delivered? Surely this is unlawful; and, if it is, how is it proposed to stop it?
The noble Lord, Lord Citrine, I believe, wrote the "Erskine May" of the trade union movement. It is a great work, and I think it is called Trade Unions and the Law.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I correct the noble Lord? That work was written by the noble Lord's son.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I am much obliged for the intervention and the cor
42
rection; it brings the work all the more up to date. In this particular work—and it is not the author but the work to which I wish to refer—the position is stated, as I understand it (the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is an authority on this, and I hope he will correct me if I am wrong), that:
"Picketing will become unlawful if either the means or the object is unlawful".
And clearly, as I say, the way the female employees were reported as being treated must surely have been unlawful. Then the book goes on to say:
"Thus, if the object of the picketing is to induce breaches of contract, other than contracts of employment in contemplat on or furtherance of a trade dispute, it will be unlawful. To picket in this way can also be criminal."
The question I want to put to the noble Lord who is to wind up is this. Presumably the power stations have contracts for the supply of essential commodities. May I ask the Government why no charges have been made, or why instructions have not been given to, say, the police to enable the supplies to get through? Because what is happening to-day is surely a breach of contract which is preventing a third-party industry from carrying on its lawful business. I do not think it is any good saying, "Well, this is being prevented by peaceful picketing". On "The World at One" to-day a group of miners were asked what they were going to do about the lorries that were coming down to the power stations. They said, "We are going to stop them getting through, of course. What do you think?" This is obstruction. It cannot in my view be peaceful picketing. I should like clarification on this whole position of the third-party industry handling things which are not coal or the product of a mine.
I am told that in some places the police are actually stopping delivery lorries in order to allow the pickets to talk to the drivers. Is this right? Is this within the law? Is this the sort of thing that ought to be going on? Because if it is, and if this is our philosophy bf picketing, I believe that we may find we get rid of the rule of law. It is also clear that if picketing is carried out in such numbers, or otherwise in such manner as to be likely to intimidate those subjected to it, or to obstruct or molest them against their will, it will be unlawful.

43
There must have been a good deal of that if the Press, television, and radio reports are correct. The book continues:
"Any show or threat of violence, or any other unlawful threat likely to create fear in the mind of a reasonable man makes picketing unlawful and may make it criminal."
There have been cases of that nature reported in the Press from day to day. My Lords, I believe that a vital constitutional principle is involved here. The Government of the day are charged with protecting the freedom of all citizens by seeing that the law is properly enforced, and I believe that the Government have not only miscalculated the potential gravity of this strike so far as the national economy is concerned, but that, instead of seeing that the law was enforced from the beginning, they may have done grave damage to our constitutional freedoms, and in my opinion this must be rectified.
Therefore, I ask the Government; what is the present law? To what extent has it been enforced? What instructions about picketing have been given to Chief Constables in the past few weeks by the Home Secretary, and particularly so far as third party industries are concerned? My Lords, I emphasise that this is not an attack upon the miners. I am asking what is the constitutional position here because I believe we are in danger of getting things out of perspective. If the Government do not enforce the law, every major strike will be aimed at stopping some third party industry, such as the power industry, from serving the public. This is the way to anarchy, and I want to know what the Government intend to do about it. Is it not time, for instance, that the Government had talks with the T.U.C. on the constitutional issues, on the way in which picketing has developed during the course of this strike? I believe that the damage which will he found to have been done to the continuous processing industries, some of which will have great difficulty in starting up again, will justify an immediate inquiry into the way in which the picketing system has developed. I would say to the miners that I hope they will call off their pickets while the Court of Inquiry is working. It surely cannot have any effect one way or another on a man of the integrity of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. The miners, as Lord Champion has said, will get a fair and
44
impartial assessment from Lord Wilberforce because he is that sort of man, and I hope most sincerely that there will be a complete reconsideration of the lengths to which this country can go, particularly in the way in which picketing has developed recently in such an antisocial way.
4.23 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Byers, on the question of what is and is not legal picketing. What I can say to him is that in my county of Nottinghamshire there has been very little trouble over this particular point. In fact it was reported in the local paper only yesterday that the Stay-thorpe Power Station had been shut down, pickets had been there during the whole of the stoppage but there had been no incidents and no disturbances. Peaceful picketing had been going on in that part of Nottinghamshire and evidently had been successful in bringing the working of the power station to a halt. As the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said, this may be a constitutional issue, and it may be that in the future more will be said about it.
I want to follow the example of the previous speakers, so far as brevity is concerned, and I want to begin by saying that it has been my opinion over a long period of time that something must be done to make this industry—the coal mining industry—viable. Certainly since 1921, and possibly before that—although that is a long enough period to enable one to make a judgment—one can state categorically that the industry has never been out of debt financially. During the period from 1921 to the outbreak of the war in 1939, scores of millions of pounds were written off, presumably owing by the miners to the late coal owners. I have not the time this afternoon to go into the details of the circumstances which prompt me to make such an assertion, but I would submit to your Lordships that if you were to take the trouble to go into the district ascertainments which pertained between 1921 and the outbreak of the war you would find that the assertion which I have just made is by no means out of place.
In the month of June, 1970, the present Prime Minister said to the nation that if

45
the Conservatives were returned as the Government of the day, at a stroke prices would be reduced, as also would the figure of unemployment; and, further, there would be a better to-morrow. I do not know whether at that time the Prime Minister was suffering from a figment of the imagination or whether he had been looking into the crystal ball, or whether, as a seafaring person, Father Neptune had said to him, "Now look here, you have a good chance if you say so-and-so." But that is what the present Prime Minister said at that time. What is the picture to-day? During the past twelve months prices have not been reduced "at a stroke"; they have been increased by at least 10 per cent. The figure of unemployment has gone up almost 100 per cent. and the situation (which we all deplore) in which the nation finds itself to-day is hardly the kind of "better tomorrow" that was visualised in June, 1970.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Champion that during this crisis the Government have been guilty of ineptitude and incompetence, and, I would add, procrastination. I recall the Secretary of State for Employment saying quite non-chalantly in the other place during the first week of the stoppage, when it was being urged upon him to take some action that would bring the mining dispute to an end, "I cannot do anything. The only thing I can say is that the door of my Department is open". The matter was dismissed by him as flippantly as that. My complaint against the Government, so far as first the mining situation and now the general situation are concerned is that they are guilty of incompetence, ineptitude and procrastination.
May I say this about the present Prime Minister? I am disappointed at the silence that he has exhibited during the past six weeks. Last Friday he went to address a Conservative Party conference in Liverpool, and this was the first time from the date of the stoppage that he had even opened his lips. As I watched him on television my immediate reaction was that anybody who did not know who it was would think he was not a statesman but a private auctioneer. What he said to the mining community of this country was, "Take the money, cash down, accept the Inquiry
46
and go back to work ". And yet—and this is where the failing of the Prime Minister is so apparent—from the first day of the stoppage until last Friday he had never asked to see the leaders of the miners.
I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is here in his place this afternoon; he is a member of the Cabinet; he must be close to the ear of the Prime Minister. I would ask him to take this message back, because it is important: "Do not be so intransigent and so arrogant and so stupid. Even at this late stage it would not do harm, certainly psychologically, to call in the leaders of the miners." At this late stage he has to-day asked to see the President of the Confederation of British Industry), and the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress. I do not complain about that; it is quite a good move, but I think it would have been much better had he called in those who are directly responsible in this dispute, that is to say, the miners' leaders.
My Lords, I said I would be brief. There are only two other things I want to say. I think that in the long term there are three alternatives facing the mining industry: number one the restructuring of its finances; number two, an increase in the price of coal; or number three, the continuing erosion of the miners' standards. Those are the three alternatives with which this country is confronted as regards the mining industry. Let me say about the last one that that is out, and I will say why in a moment or two. So far as the second is concerned, an increase in the price of coal, that would be very unwelcome by the nation. Some Government, if not this, has got to get down to the business of restructuring the finances of this industry and removing the millstone from around its neck which is mainly responsible for the trouble in which the nation finds itself to-day.
My closing words are these. I live in the coalfield, and these last three or four weekends I have made it my business to talk to the miners and their local leaders in Nottinghamshire. May I say this to the noble Lord who is to reply. In this industry I have had a long experience, but at no time have I seen greater determination on the part of the miners to refuse to have their standards

47
eroded. I want to talk as the miners are talking. There are thousands of them with their wives outside this afternoon, come to impress Members of the other place with the justice of their case. I had a talk with one miner and I mentioned to him, "You hear what they are saying about pit closures?". "Oh", he said, "pit closures, Bernard"—that is what they call me—"it leaves us cold, like pouring water on a duck's back". I said "You must have some reason for saying that." He said, "Oh, yes, for the past ten years they have closed 600 pits and have put nearly half-a-million miners, at any rate, on the roads. And you tell them this in London …". I am going to tell your Lordships what he said. I do not know whether to use the adjectives or not; it might not be appropriate in this place. There seems some dissent about it, so I will leave the adjectives out. "When you get to London tell them this: that as far as we are concerned, seeing that we have been so rewarded for our co-operation in the last ten years to make this industry viable, we have now reached a stage where unless we can have a standard of life comparable with the workers in other industries, commensurate with the dangers and the difficulties that we have to face, they can close the lot". That is the mood, that is the temper and that is the spirit of the miner at this time.
I am glad the Inquiry has been set up. I hope there will be a successful outcome. But may I say this, with no desire to cause any influence: that the miners are in no mood, believe me, to accept peanuts as part of the settlement of this dispute.
4.38 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I shall be briefer than usual. During the weekend this Tory Government—and I use the word "Tory" deliberately rather than Conservative—have had a pasting in the Press from right, left and centre. Picking on picketing to excuse themselves, the Government have not convinced me, or many other people either. The extent of picketing should make one think not just of law and order but of law and equality in economic policies. To think of law and order in the rather superficial way that a great many people do is simply to evade the underlying
48
malaise in our society. Whether the newspapers have leaned more towards the miners' case or the Government's side, all have agreed that the Government have been insensitive, intransigent, incompetent and unprepared; and here I agree with my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield.
From the day that this Government took office they have been what I can only call "manifesto mad". They keep referring to their little blue book of election promises—superficial slogans. They are steadily discovering that governing is not the same as electioneering and they have alienated half the population of this country. By resisting increased wage demands and at the same time disclaiming a prices and incomes policy they have wielded an "incomes without prices" policy which rests on increasing unemployment. There is an irony about their policy of limiting wage demands in the public sector, for here the Right-Wing Tories are conceding the argument of the Labour Left, who maintain that a Government can regulate the economy more easily through the public sector in the interests of the whole community. But this must not be interpreted as holding down wages in the public sector while leaving the private sector to ignore the exhortations of the Government and allocate wage increases far higher than those asked for by the miners. The recent increases made by Chrysler and British Leyland are examples of this.
Gentlemanly disengagement has been the order of the day in the miners' dispute. Mr. Ezra, the Coal Board's chairman, has sounded rather like a ventriloquist's dummy—the Government denying any intention of bankrupting the Coal Board while they were in the process of bankrupting it. Mr. Carr and Mr. John Davies should have staged a "sit-in" at the Mineworkers' Union headquarters and not left until they had hammered out a settlement. Here I again agree with my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield when he suggests that the Prime Minister might have joined them there, too. Even if a settlement had not been achieved, it might have taught them something about the facts of life, and about the industrial state of the nation and the grievous feelings of injustice that many trade unionists are labouring under.

49
This weekend the Sunday Times came out strongly for the Government, saying why they thought that the miners must not win. It was a very unstatesmanlike headline. They would have done better to reprint an article by their labour correspondent, Hugo Young, written during the power workers' dispute about a year ago. This article, which I re-read the other day, is prophetic in its analysis of our industrial troubles and their misguided handling by the Government. The article stated that it looked at issues beyond the power cuts, and accused the Government of engaging in policies of "divide and rule". This is as true today as it was over a year ago.
Mr. Heath's ambition to change the course of history—as he proclaimed when he was returned—will spell disaster if he does not couple this ambition with a change in the social order. The Government's dogmatic economic policies as the Guardian pointed out a few days ago, have so far failed to deliver success. These emergency measures, necessary as they are, are a monument to their failure, for we shall have everything in months to come: we shall have inflation; we shall have high prices; and we shall have high unemployment. Finally, I should like to wish the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, success in his Inquiry, and hope that pride and prestige, two of the most dangerous components of politics to-day, will not prevent a successful outcome to this tragic strike.
4.45 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, on the case for the miners for greater remuneration I do not propose to say anything at all, because that is a subject that has been referred to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and his Court. I believe that noble Lords in all quarters of the House are glad of that and do not think that it would be very profitable to discuss that topic—certainly not for somebody without direct knowledge of the industry. The matter on which I am going to address the House is a matter of law. Here may I say with what pleasure I heard the noble Lord, Lord Byers, because I propose to address the House on precisely the same topic.
It is generally admitted in all quarters that in the events that have happened
50
picketing has played an extremely important part. Was this picketing legal? My Lords, it is my submission that a large part of the picketing that has taken place has been quite plainly illegal. The authorities that I shall quote are, I think, authorities that the House will respect. They are the Report of the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, and the two modern cases decided in the courts that the Donovan Report itself cited.
What are the purposes for which picketing is authorised under Section 2 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906? They are expressed thus: the attendance must be—and now I come to the actual words—
"merely for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information, or of peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain from working."
Those are the two purposes for which alone that section of the Act of 1906 provides: peacefully obtaining or communicating information, or peacefully persuading. For the reasons given in the Donovan Report in paragraph 872, sometimes the pickets are entitled to have the first purpose only—namely, communicating information—but in order to simplify matters for the House on this occasion I shall assume that in all the recent cases of picketing the pickets would have had as possible legitimate aims both those purposes.
The two modern decided cases are these—and I shall give their legal references in order that they may be followed up by anybody who is concerned to ascertain the law—Piddington v. Bates, reported in [1960] 3 A.E.R. at page 660, and the more recent case of Tynan v. Balmer, reported (as to the proceedings in the Crown Court of Liverpool) in [1965] 3 A.E.R. at page 99, and in the Divisional Court of Queen's Bench in [1966] 2 A.E.R. at page 133. Of those two decisions of a modern Divisional Court, that in 1960 was a decision of the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker of Waddington, and the more recent decision of Tynam v. Balmer in 1966 was the decision of the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker, and Mr. Justice Sachs and Mr. Justice Widgery, as they then were. These decisions make the present law perfectly clear in certain respects. I am going to

51
state some of their effects, and I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is here so that he can correct me if he thinks I am going wrong.
The first thing that is absolutely clear is that the police can limit the numbers of pickets. Let me read what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, said, about the Piddington case. He said:
"Two recent cases on section 2 of the Act of 1906 might be mentioned. In Piddington v. Bates"—
and then there is the reference that I have given—
"a police constable told Piddington, a would-be picket, that the two existing pickets at the particular entrance to the employer's premises were enough."
Three would be too much. He stopped a third and that gave rise to the case. It was held that the police constable was right. It is equally clear from these decided cases, even if it was not before, that obstruction and intimidation are unlawful and that the pickets have no right whatever to use force to stop either a pedestrian or a vehicle, if the pedestrian or the man driving the vehicle does not wish to stop. These scenes, in which men crowd around vehicles and try to push them back, have no resemblance whatsoever to peaceful picketing—none whatsoever. Nor by any stretch of the imagination can they be brought within that sphere. The fact is that the mass picketing recently practiced making it physically impossible for people or vehicles to get through, derives no authority whatsoever from the law as laid down in 1906.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, in his admirable speech, asked one or two rather difficult questions which I think would need a good deal of consideration by a lawyer. But the main points he made were, I thought, crystal clear and absolutely right; that the law has been ignored and contravened to a very large extent. Let me make it quite clear that here I am not accusing the leaders of the National Union of Mineworkers of bad faith. I think some of them are as mistaken about the law of picketing as many other people who ought to know better. What I am suggesting is that the National Union of Mineworkers—and the men who lead them, I feel sure, are not
52
indifferent as to whether or not they are obeying the law—should study what the noble Lord, Lord Donovan, has said in his Report and the two cases which I have ventured to quote. Does the noble Lord wish to interrupt?
LORD BESWICK: I did not really want to interrupt, my Lords. But is there not an even greater obligation upon the Government to state what the law is at the time?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am not a member of the Government, and what the Government do is for the Government to decide. I am stating bona fide, with such legal knowledge as I have, in the presence of the Lord Chancellor whom I ask to correct me if at any point I go wrong, what I believe the law to be. I advise the leaders of the National Union of Mineworkers to study what Lord Donovan said and to study, above all, the two legal cases that I have quoted. May I read in passing, because it is rather interesting, what Lord Donovan himself said on the subject of mass picketing, because there were people who wanted him to recommend an alteration of the law that would permit mass picketing. It may be useful to remind your Lordships in a few sentences of what Lord Donovan himself said, and I think I am right in saying that in this paragraph he was speaking for all his colleagues, including Mr. Woodcock of the T.U.C. This is what Lord Donovan said about mass picketing in paragraph 874 of his Report:
"The T.U.C. asked that Section 2 be amplified so as to permit communication by pickets with a person 'whether that person is in a vehicle or on foot'. There is, however, at present nothing in the section to preclude this. The Society of Labour Lawyers went further and suggested that a limited right should be given to pickets to stop vehicles so as to communicate with the drivers, due regard being had to other users of the highway. It seems to us, however,"—
and here he was speaking, as I said, for all his colleagues—
"that it would be impossible to define such a right in terms which would avoid considerable obstruction to the highway and serious risk of personal injury to the pickets themselves. Others urged that 'mass picketing' should be protected by the law. It is not clear, however, why mass picketing is required simply to communicate information, and the advocates of this proposal did not suggest that they desired it for any other purpose than

53
to demonstrate solidarity, which can be done equally well by other means."
I thought it well to remind the House of those words of Lord Donovan because they show that this question of giving further legal protection to the mass picketing from which we have recently suffered was considered by the Donovan Commission and deliberately and unanimously turned down.
There is only one further point which I might make in self-defence. It may be asked: "Why did you not suggest making the law clearer on this subject when the Industrial Relations Bill, now an Act, was passing through this House?" The answer is perfectly simple: I did. On June 8, 1971, the picketing clause—there was not very much in the Bill about it—came before this House in Committee. I expressed my regret that Her Majesty's Government had not thought fit to deal with the effect of the two decided cases that I have cited this afternoon and which were cited in the Donovan Report itself. Those cases showed what limitations could be imposed by the police under the existing law, through the control of numbers and so on. May I quote my actual words? I said:
"My criticism of the Government in regard to this clause is that it is a great pity that, by omission, they do not mention any of those limitations defining what the police can legitimately do on the basis of the decided cases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8/6/71 col. 119.]
It is just conceivable that there are members of the Government who now think that that was not a bad suggestion. That Industrial Relations Bill, now an Act, was not a short one. Surely it was worth while stating in clear language what was the law of picketing.
My Lords, let me conclude by saying this. With the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I hope that nobody will say that the law does not matter. Our national and international reputation, as well as our economic recovery, depend on our recovering our respect for the law, and obeying it.
5.0 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I apologise to the House for being absent for a while during this debate, but I was called out by the miners and their wives, who are demonstrating in another place: and I may tell the noble Lord who preceded me that I was peacefully picketed
54
by the hundreds of miners and their wives who are lobbying their M.P.s in the Lobbies. Of course, the picketing here will not interfere with any production that affects our economic life.
My Lords, the Declaration of Emergency and the Regulations before us were bound to come as time went on because stocks were bound to be run down and. at the same time, no coal was being produced. There are some 150 electricity stations on coal, and they are responsible for nearly three-quarters of our electricity supplies. If this strike is not settled they will slowly be stopped altogether because there cannot be much coal left at the stations. The undistributed stocks cannot be moved unless, by these Regulations, the Government intend to use the Forces of the State to do it. If that happens it will bring about a state of affairs that no one wants to see. All that the miners wish is for this dispute to be settled in an orderly way that will give them a reasonable wage. It should be remembered by the Government also that what undistributed stocks there are will be needed to keep the stations going when this dispute is settled, and it will take two to three weeks to get the pits going again.
I would advise the Government that these Regulations must not be used as a weapon for breaking the strike or the miners, because we have memories of these Regulations in the 1926 dispute. On the other hand, I recognise that the Government have a great responsibility to see that power goes to the hospitals, to the water and gas industries and to the railways; and also to see that old people get heat. In respect of coal to hospitals and the aged, the miners have helped and will help all they can in these two cases. But the House of Lords should remember that there are many old people who can get coal but who have not got the money to pay for it on the meagre pension that they are receiving.
This still means that electricity will go on ration, causing an upset to family life and to industry. These controlled black-outs will affect 7 million domestic, commercial and industrial users, and if the weather gets worse power supplies will he cut further. Under these Regulations the Government can order a complete shutdown of power to non-essential industries for as many days as they consider

55
proper. So the situation this House faces is of factories facing a shutdown as power stations' coal stocks dwindle and electricity dies out, and homes being without light for long periods. As I see the picture, it is apparent that we shall be witness to the largest industrial crisis that has been seen for years if this dispute is not settled. Are the Government going to face a shutdown and a crisis that is so unnecessary? Within the financial limits of the N.C.B. they say they cannot afford more money, and so the Inquiry takes place—and the union has decided to give evidence. It will take at least a week, and then it may take another week to get the men's decision if the decision of the court is worth putting to them. It is only the Government who can come to the rescue. Many projects enjoy State support: why not coal? It is still an asset to the nation.
In my last speech to the House I dealt at some length with the N.C.B.'s financial structure, and I now find the Minister for Industry, of the Conservative Party, saying that the Government have now come to the same conclusion. In closing the debate in another place last week, on February 8, he said:
"It is, I think, common knowledge that the whole question of the board's financial structure has been in the air for some time, and, obviously, we shall have to give careful thought to the prospects of viability now before it. But first, of course, the strike itself has got to come to an end."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 8/2/72; col. 1263.]
So at last the Government are recognising that the financial structure is as I illustrated it to the House last week. That is why the miners have objected to these accounts being used as an argument to deny to the men in the coal industry reasonable wages; and that is why we say that their 7 per cent. wages policy in the nationalised sector cannot be accepted, and that it has created the present position.
It must be realised by all that this crisis lies squarely on the Government's shoulders. The Government began by misjudging what would be the economic effect or the economic impact of this strike; secondly, they misjudged the determination of the miners; and, thirdly, their interference by laying down a 7 per cent. increase for the nationalised industries while leaving the private sector free
56
to negotiate higher wages was bound to lead to industrial warfare. Why, even last week the Chrysler men were settled at £6 a week, and the Government could do nothing. Their lavatory attendants now get £33 a week, and Chrysler will merely increase the price of cars to meet the situation. But the miner, in the hard, laborious work that he does, must be tied by the Government's norm.
If this strike is not settled sharply it is going to have serious effects on the economy. Unemployment, now over a million, is going rapidly upwards and will take a long time to reverse; and output, which we expected to rise in the economy, will take much longer. The longer this strike goes on the more will feelings get harder and the men get more embittered. The men are 100 per cent. solid, and so are their wives. You only have to go among them, as I do every weekend, to understand their attitude. It is they, the wives, who are behind their men in this fight for wages. I recognise, as I said, the difficulties of the Government, but they have been created by themselves. These Regulations will not break the determination of the men, even if they are used in a vicious way.
My Lords, in the light of the Prime Minister's speech at Liverpool on Friday, miners are asking "How can the Inquiry be impartial, free and unfettered, after this speech by him?" It was an untimely speech to be made just before the Inquiry starts its work. Neither side are bound by any decision that the Inquiry gives; and we want a settlement; but the speech by the Prime Minister again gives the impression that the Inquiry will be governed by Government dictates. Can an assurance be given that the Inquiry now taking place will not be subject to the 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. norm on wages fixed by the Government for the nationalised industries?—for if this is not given there cannot be much hope of a settlement.
Peaceful picketing is within the law, and in most parts of the country it has been done without incident. In others, there have been incidents and provocations. I have done a lot of picketing in my time and it is not an easy job, especially in an acute crisis like this. All I would ask is that the Government request the police to be tolerant towards the pickets and for the pickets to carry

57
out their job within the law. While we know that at all times the police have to maintain public order, I think that their job was made very difficult by the provocation at the Saltley Gasworks at Birmingham last week; and terrible indignation was created among my people by one of the miners' pickets being killed. He was buried last week. All that one can do here is to ask the police and the men to be tolerant towards each other where picketing takes place. I would ask the Government to have the same sense of responsibility that the miners and the police have been exercising at 95 per cent. of the coalfields and in getting out the supplies to hospitals and needy cases.
My advice to the Government under these Regulations is not to bring any troops into this dispute. Our troops in Ireland have a hard job between the two sections of the population. The last thing I want is to see them used between the miners and the Government in this dispute—because the miners have long memories and we still remember Featherstone and Tonypandy when they were used against us pretty ruthlessly. To bring troops into this dispute will create more bitterness than that which exists to-day.
The announcement by the Minister of Trade and Industry last week means a massive increase in the unemployment figure which will rise from one and three-quarter millions to two and a quarter millions—that is including the pre-dispute figure of one million unemployed. The Minister also stated that there will be sterner cuts if the situation gets worse, and until this dispute is settled I cannot see its getting any better. Industrialists are perturbed as they try to grasp the implications of the Government's emergency measures. The steel, car, shipyard, repairing yards and engineering industries are already affected. The cost of it all in money is far more than is needed to meet the request of the miners for a reasonable wage. No one can say that the position we are in now was not foreseen. Warnings were given to the Government weeks and weeks ago; yet nothing was done to appreciate the gravity of the situation. The miners want a settlement—which is probably harder to get now than it was five weeks ago. My sincere desire is that Lord Wilber
58
force by his Inquiry can break this deadlock and settle the matter. The greatest industrial crisis we have had for many years faces the nation, and the total responsibility for it rests squarely on the shoulders of the Government. They did nothing for four weeks while this strike went on. The miners do not want to see the country in danger; they are ready to work once they are given a wage on which they can decently keep their families.
My Lords, in conclusion I would appeal to the Tribunal to give the matter the utmost urgency to bring about a settlement in as quick a time as possible. I hope also that their decision will convince the miners that at last they have got justice and that the country will not have to endure the present agony a moment longer than is necessary. Because the Government have played such a part in these negotiations as to have brought the nation to this crisis, I shall vote against the Motion tonight.
5.17 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, the course which the debate has taken probably places me under an obligation to intervene at this stage. I must first say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, who according to the list of speakers was to have spoken next and who has kindly indicated that he has no objection to my intervening at this particular point of time. I think that my need to address the House at this stage arises out of the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and of my noble friend Lord Conesford. I also fully accept from the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who intervened at one stage, that it is the obligation of someone on behalf of the Government—and, if anybody, then probably the Lord Chancellor—to give some indication, where it is possible, of what the law may be on this topic. May I say, in passing, that I had not intended to speak as your Lordships will have noticed from the list of speakers? That was quite deliberate. We are discussing the Regulations and the Emergency which has given rise to them. I would think that, strictly speaking, what the House would wish to discuss was, first, whether an emergency did exist and, secondly, whether the Regulations were in order.

59
Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in what I thought was a notable contribution to the debate—and in that respect I endorse fully the words of eulogy heaped upon him by my noble friend Lord Conesford—raised the question of the lawfulness of some of the things being done. So did my noble friend Lord Conesford, in his own speech which I should also like to praise for the accuracy of many of the things in it. There is obviously a danger in my intervening on the legal side of the matter because, as I learned from my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and as I noted from his speech in another place yesterday, arrests have been made, charges are pending, and the courts will have to rule upon them. I therefore do not want to say anything this afternoon to your Lordships, or to anyone else, which could possibly prejudice the outcome of legal proceedings before the courts. Therefore, in the nature of things what I have to say must be confined to some extent to generalities and certainly should not be taken as referring to any particular case, whether or not noble Lords think they have seen it on the television screen. Because such a case might be the subject of judicial proceedings, it would be still improper for me, whatever other noble Lords may be free to do or say, to say myself anything which could conceivably prejudice those proceedings.
With that by way of premise, perhaps I may approach this subject with suitable caution. Almost every generalisation that one chooses to make about this subject probably needs qualification. The Common Law on the subject is not altogether plain. What is plain is that there are two statutory enactments now in force; namely, the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, of which the relevant section is Section 7, and the Trades Disputes Act 1906, of which the relevant section is Section 2. Both of these Acts have a bearing on the subject under discussion. There is also a third enactment the relevant part of which is not yet in force, but which comes into force on February 28—the Industrial Relations Act. That Act, which will be comparatively fresh in your Lordships' memory, also has a bearing on one of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, though not, I think, on the questions raised by my noble friend
60
Lord Conesford. So that really, except in so far as there exists a somewhat imprecise Common Law on the subject. what one has to consider is two enactments, and only two, now in force; namely, the Act of 1875 and the Act of 1906.
The Act of 1875 (apart from its other provisions, with which I will not weary the House) differs from the Act of 1906 in this respect. The Act of 1875, by Section 7, renders certain acts unlawful, whereas Section 2 of the Act of 1906 renders certain acts lawful. While, therefore, I wholly agree with the interpretation put upon the Act of 1906 by my noble friend Lord Conesford, with which alone he dealt, there should be added the qualification that the section which he quoted legalises something which might or might not have otherwise been illegal. The Act of 1875 renders something illegal whether or not it might otherwise have been legal. It is important to bear that in mind, in view of what I am going to say.
I will not weary the House by reading the entire sections. I absolutely agree with my noble friend Lord Conesford that an extremely good semi-popular exposition of this subject is contained in the Donovan Report, at page 227, under the heading "Picketing". This is easier for the layman to read than Citrine's Trade Unions and the Law, which is a book for lawyers, and indeed the leading textbook on the subject. For those who wish for an intelligent layman's point of view, I would recommend Donovan as being a slightly easier, though not necessarily more accurate, exposition of the matter.
The Act of 1875, as I have said, renders certain acts illegal which might or might not have been legal up to that point. One of those acts is:
"To use violence to or intimidate such other person or his wife or children, or to injure his property."
The second is:
"Persistently to follow such other person about from place to place.'
A third is:
"To hide any tools, clothes or other property owned or used by such other person or deprive him of them, or hinder him in the use thereof."

61
Then, fourthly:
"To watch or beset such other person's house or place of work or business or the approach thereto."
And fifthly:
" To follow such other person with two or more other persons in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road."
The whole of those acts are rendered illegal. The Act provides that it is unlawful for any person to act in those manners
"wrongfully and without legal authority and with a view to compelling another to do or not to do any act which that other had a legal right to do."
Clearly, in the case supposed by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in the ordinary case where a gas company, for instance, is seeking to perform a contract to sell coal or coke already in their possession and on their own property to some third party, they and persons acting under their authority have a legal right to sell and deliver that coal or coke, and therefore they would come within the phrase which I have just quoted from the Act of 1875; and to do any of those acts which I have enumerated in relation to them or their servants might therefore come within the words of the section if the evidence was such as to bring them within those words. So much for the Act of 1875.
The Act of 1906, as I said before, is not an Act which illegalises anything (if I may coin a horrible and un-English verb) it renders something lawful. My noble friend read parts of this Act. but he did not make it absolutely plain; and to this extent, and this extent only, I thought his exposition was defective. The Act begins with the words:
"It shall be lawful for one or more persons, acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union or of an individual employer or firm in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute"—
and those words are material, because it must be in contemplation of a trade dispute or in furtherance of a trade dispute before the section bites, and there have been some recent decisions in which those words have been construed by the court which might have a bearing on the question posed by Lord Byers—
" to attend at or near a house or place where a person resides or works or carries on business or happens to he. if they so attend merely for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or
62
communicating information, or of peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain from working."
Of course, when your hear somebody like the noble Lord, Lord Blytan, who has just spoken to the House, talking about "peaceful picketing", teey are really using a perfectly legitimate form of shorthand to refer to that section. But it is not true that everything that you do which is peaceful and which you choose to call picketing is legalised by hat section, because what you have to look at in order to ascertain whether it is legal or not is not the perfectly legitimate shorthand that we use in conversat on, but the actual words of the section.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is not the noble and learned Lord now saying something which might prejudice, my case on the subject of picketing coming before the courts?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think so at all. I was asked to expound the general law on the subject, and I am trying to do it for the information of the House. Of course, if at any moment I were to say anything which reflected on an individual case, I should immediately seek to qualify it. But, so far as I know, I have said nothing which any judge, jury or counsel could possibly treat as influencing any individual case which is now sub judice or is likely to become sub judice in the course of this dispute. If I am wrong I hope to be rebuked, but I am fairly confider t that I am right.
That said, it follows that m" noble friend is right. In order to claim the advantage of the section of the 1906 Act, a person must establish that what he was doing was in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute; and in the case of Cousins v. Torquay Hotels he failed to do so. There was one other case, called Stratford v. Lindley, in which the point was raised and was equally unsuccessful from the point of view of the union. Then a person seeking to rely on the section has to show tint what he was doing, if it comes within the description of the action. was merely—that is the crucial word—for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information or of peacefully persuading any person to work or to abstain from working.

63
My noble friend Lord Conesford, absolutely correctly, drew the attention of the House to two cases on which Lord Donovan's Commission rightly placed emphasis in their exposition of the law. The first was Piddington; and Piddington clearly establishes the point I was seeking to make a moment ago: that in order to claim the advantage of the section you must look at the words of it and not use a shorthand phrase like "peaceful picketing", because your Lordships will remember from my noble friend's exposition that in that case there were only two persons picketing, and what Piddington sought unsuccessfully to do, for which he was arrested, was to make a third. I quote from Lord Donovan's exposition at the bottom of page 229:
" There was no obstruction of the highway, no violence and no disorder."
In other words, what Piddington did could be, within the meaning of those phrases I have just read out, described as "peaceful". He was none the less held to be outside the law because the police constable who stopped him was reasonably justified in expecting a breach of the peace unless he thinned out the picket line. Piddington was convicted of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty contrary to the Prevention of Crimes (Amendment) Act 1885. In other words, he was not able to claim the benefit of Section 2 in that case, and equally he was guilty of an offence not under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 but under the general Statute Law relating to crimes which applies to everybody. So much for Piddington, to which my noble friend referred.
He also referred to the case of Tynan v. Balmer in which, again, the facts are extremely material to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. In this case, 40 pickets outside the main entrance to a factory moved about in a continuous circle, thus obstructing vehicles and pedestrians. Yet there was no violence—again, something that could perfectly well be described as "peaceful" in the ordinary use of the word. Tynan, who was in charge of the pickets (he was the party who gave his name to the case), was asked by a constable to stop the circling, but refused. He was arrested and later convicted by a magistrate for
64
wilfully obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. The conviction was upheld in the Crown Court at Liverpool and in the Court of Appeal. It was held that the powers of the police to interfere with picketing were not confined to cases where a breach of the peace was feared, that the circling was not justified by Section 2 of the 1906 Act and that the circling was an unjustified obstruction of the highway. In other words, what rendered that act illegal, apart from the law relating to the obstruction of the police, was the obstruction of the highway—another factor which is illegal under the general law and not under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. That was held to be illegal and, so far as I know, that is the law at the present time.
It follows therefore that if by sheer numbers you seek to stop people getting somewhere where they have a right to go, this is not peaceful picketing within the meaning of Section 2 of the 1906 Act, because what is sought then is not to convey information or the like but to physically obstruct people from doing a thing which they have the right to do. Secondly, sheer numbers and threats of violence or noise can be intimidation. I do not say that they are in any case which has occurred or is likely to occur. I merely say that sheer numbers and threats of noise or violence, so as to put reasonable men in apprehension that they will not be allowed to enter somewhere without paying a penalty which they arc not liable to pay and to do that which they have a legal right to do, is not something which is sanctioned by the law.
I am not going to give a direct answer to the third question which was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, because it is a more difficult one; that was about the contractual rights of third parties. I do not think I should be justified in giving a likely explanation there, except to say to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that one of the reasons why we passed that section of the Industrial Relations Act last summer was because that part of the law is not altogether satisfactory or clear. I would rather, if I may, in my brief remarks this afternoon, steer clear of it altogether. Also, I am not in a position this afternoon to say what instructions, if any, my right honourable friend has given the police. That is a

65
matter for the Home Office. My noble friend Lord Windlesham is here to assist the House if he feels able to do so. All I have sought to do is to reply as clearly and accurately as I could to the invitation which was impliedly put out by the two noble Lords who have spoken, and expressly thrown out by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I must apologise for detaining your Lordships for so long.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down may I say how very grateful the House will be for his very important intervention. May I ask him when we are likely to get any clarification of this question of people who persuade other people to break a contract which has been entered into in good faith? I do not want an answer to that now, but when will this be clarified?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not want to fluff this in any way, but these are cases where one has to but these are cases where one has to fluff the answer deliberately. I do not want to burke this question, but the Lord Chancellor (and indeed in another place the Law Officer) is not a British law ascertainment tribunal, in the sense that he is entitled to prejudge the decisions of the courts. He is bound to assist the House of Lords, so far as his humble professional capacity enables him to do so, about the principles which are reasonably well ascertained; and that I have tried to do. I tried to do it this summer as to the possible effects of the section which we have enacted but which does not come into effect until February 28. But where the law is slightly obscure and depends very largely on a precise formulation of particular facts, I think it would be wrong for me to venture an opinion, and I might be treading on the ground which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, suggested I might have been treading on a moment or two ago. I do not know that there are any cases which raise this point, but the only definitive answer which can be given to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, at this stage is that the courts must decide.
5.40 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his interpretation from the Woolsack, but I
66
wish to point out something that the entire House seems to have missed. First, we have been talking about the Donovan Report in normal circumstances. What this House seems to have forgotten is that we are discussing these Regulations, giving emergency powers, and the entire statement (I have not been trained in the law, but I did some logic and semantics) of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack seems to be changed by page 21 of the Regulations. Regulation 35 says, in simple, plain English language:
" Where a constable, with reasonable cause, suspects that an offence against any of these Regulations has been committed, he may arrest without warrant anyone whoa, he. with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence."
So why all the talk?
LORD CHAMPION: That is fair enough.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Of course it is fair enough.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think it is. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe dealt with this point in his opening speech. One of these Regulations (I have not been able to put my finger on it while the noble Lord has been speaking; but it is Regulation 21, I think) expressly says that this does not alter the law in relation to picketing; it does not impinge on it.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I would not be so arrogant as to contradict the noble and learned Lord directly; but in my estimation it does exactly what I said it does. Furthermore, we are now legitimising illegality of emergency powers. I do not want to delay the House; it is my intention to steak for about only four minutes. We have 50 or 60 Regulations: a man can run a car or lorry without a licence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me for one moment, if he will be patient enough? Where I failed before in putting my finger on it, what I was referring to is in Regulation 37. If the noble Lord looks at the proviso he will find that I was right.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, the House will be delighted that that clarification has come forth. I will leave

67
it at that because it would be obtuse of me to follow that point any further. I think I have made a case here that since we have had emergency regulations the whole matter is different. I want to warn the House, as somebody who remembers the great previous occasion of 1926, and before, that we are a different society from that of 1926, which was primitive. At that time we could cook on a coal fire; upsetting the electricity supplies did not interrupt the rhythm of life so much in the 1920s and in 1926 as the rhythm of life is upset to-day. Take the poor people who are living in 26-storey flats where the water has to be pumped upstairs. In other words, the impact of this type of strike is greater than ever before in our history.
With an intelligent and understanding Government we may be able to make this the last of the strikes if we approach the problem and do not play a game of political brinkmanship as the Government have been doing. I should have liked to take longer, but this House is a wise one and probably knows everything I am going to say. I want to spike down, en passant, this point: we must use the public services as a social shock absorber. Coal, transport, electricity, gas, are social shock absorbers. I accept that at the moment (although one day I think it will be changed) that they can be the floats upon which an intelligent, fair, private enterprise can he kept smooth and competitive. Even Churchill, 30 years ago, believed that it was legitimate to subsidise the railways to help industry. I wish the Government would look at these public enterprises in that light. I could quite easily make a 30-minute speech on that point; but this is such a wise and noble House that I am sure every Member present has grasped my point without me expanding on it.
I am objecting—and this point should be watched—to the snide asides at our people in the mining industry, about them lacking intelligence. They are as intelligent as any policeman. Some judges who have sat in this House and other noble Lords, and even bishops, have been sons of miners or, in some cases, have cut coal themselves. To attack any particular class of society for lack of intelligence, as apparently Kingsley Amis did the other day, is an
68
arrogant assumption of intellectuality. So many people oozing with intellectuality, oozing wisdom and lacking wisdom, do not help in a case like this. Consequently, I hope that this trial by television will cease. I feel quite strongly about this, and I am trying to control my emotions about it. Quite sincerely, I think that the interpretation that the noble and learned Lord gave from the Woolsack is necessary at this period in order that we may understand the position. I hope that in this emergency period those who appear on the television will control their remarks rather than cast forward things to get immediate applause or use the immediate catch phrase to arouse popularity.
I have cut my speech by about 99 per cent., and I will sit down now with this observation: no noble Lord in this House can justify the situation in an industry where, as in South Wales, there are nearly 80,000 miners who, after a week's work, can claim family supplements if they really wish to push their claim at the Ministry of Social Security. I thought that it was a good Act in which Sir Keith Joseph did a job of work when he introduced the family supplements provisions. I maintain that any system of society which allows 280,000 key men in the mining industry to he pushed into the position where 80,000 of their number in one part of the country alone, South Wales and its area, can ask for family supplements has something wrong with its scale of economic values. Consequently, without exacerbating the situation, I sincerely hope that we will try as soon as possible to settle this dispute and learn that we must look at this industry in a different light. Why did we send "Bevin boys" to the pits during the war? It was because of the hardness and difficulty of the job. Consequently, while this debate to-night has been a good one, and so far as I am concerned fairly conducted, I hope that noble Lords on both sides of the House will understand that those of us who come from country or mining backgrounds are not trying to overstate our case, but that the time has come when this industry should he treated justly.
5.48 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I utter a word of support for my noble friends on the Front Bench

69
who are moving this Motion for Emergency Powers? Let me say straight away to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, that I agree with the special case of the miners, but the question at issue is, "How much?" This is always the problem. One thing that we have all been able to agree about is that there is now a grave crisis and therefore emergency powers are needed. With some dialectical skill the noble Lord, Lord Champion, managed to differentiate his support for that from his intended opposition for the Motion itself. There is no doubt that it is the Government's duty to take every action needed to safeguard the life of the community, and that is what they are doing. As I understand it, particularly from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, supported by many other noble Lords opposite, Her Majesty's Opposition are opposing the Motion because they claim that the fuel crisis was caused by the Government's mishandling of the situation. Let me say in passing that however this is differentiated, it is very unusual for the Opposition Party of the day to vote against giving emergency powers to a Government in a national crisis.
Let us face the issue in the present crisis. Clearly there has been fault—and probably there have been faults. Either they have been on the side of the National Coal Board, and possibly the Government, or they have been on the side of the National Union of Mineworkers, who called the strike. It is not difficult for both sides to recognise that. I must say to noble Lords opposite that in assessing the objectivity of their decision to charge the Government with this fault, to attack the Government for mishandling, we must record the fact that noble Lords opposite have decided throughout this disute that they will support the National Union of Mineworkers. I am not complaining about that; that is -for them to decide. I well understand the deep traditional loyalties on the other side and I listened with interest and respect to noble Lords who have worked in the pits and noble Lords who have been closely associated with them for many years. I well understand how deep and strong their feelings are, but noble Lords opposite, in opposing this Motion to-night and dividing against it, are doing no more than being consistent
70
to this loyalty that they have already declared. But they cannot expect to be regarded as impartial judges of the situation, and they will not be. In voting against the emergency powers they expose themselves to the charge of putting Party interests before national interests.
My Lords, there are two points specific, ally, and one major one, which I should like to touch on briefly in regard to the Government's handling of this dispute which has led to the present requirement of emergency powers. They are both unusual in an industrial dispute. The first is the National Union of Mineworkers' persistent unwillingness to negotiate at all in this dispute. This has been the rock on which our fuel supplies have now foundered. The second is the nature of the picketing, which has already been referred to. I regard it as very much a secondary issue, although it is obviously one which people feel very strongly about. Dealing with the first. the unwillingness of the National Union of Mineworkers to negotiate, it is significant and I think it is just worth repeating the course of events.
Since the strike started on January 9, the National Union of Mineworkers have stuck to their demand for full settlement which was an extra £5 to £9 per week. That would cost the National Coal Board an extra £130 million per annum, a sum which everybody must have recognised was impossible. I will quote specific instances. In the final negotiations, before the Union decided to call the strike, the National Coal Board offered to refer the dispute to the independent National Reference Tribunal and this was rejected. This has been especially provided under the coal mining industry conciliation tribunal. It was rejected. Secondly, during the course of the strike the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress, Mr. Feather, made a determined effort to try to bring the two sides together and he failed. He said in his statement on January 19 that there was no prospect of doing so.
Finally, in the negotiations last week, the National Coal Board increased their basic offer by £1 per week to an extra £3 per week. It would have beer spread, it is true, over an 18-month period instead of a 12-month period, with certain other improvements. This would have raised

71
the national minimum wage for mineworkers to £22 per week for the lowest paid workers, and would have raised the national rating of the lowest paid workers and the national rating of mineworkers generally from 16th to 6th place in the national scale. This was also rejected. This, my Lords, really does show an extremely unco-operative attitude.
There are many unions in this country who can make out a case for special treatment. We have heard several in the last 18 months. Only 15 months ago we were deeply concerned about the case for what are called the "dirty work" workers in the public service. They have a special case. I will not take up your Lordships' time now, but I cannot forbear to say that I am connected with the farming world. The farm worker's statutory wage for a 42-hour week is £16·10. He has to work weekends as well. It is true that he gets overtime for that weekend work, but his final wage is far below the final wages being claimed here. Of course, he does not have a dirty, dangerous job like mining. I agree that the miner has a dirty, dangerous job and deserves recognition as a special case. The point I am making is that there is a limit, and it must be seen in the national perspective in order to judge what it should be. However strong the miners' case may be, no Government could have agreed to finance the wage increase concerned. Certainly the National Coal Board could not do it. If something of the order of an extra £100 million, which their final demand of some £7 per week would have amounted to, had been granted, this would have had to be financed by the Government, and any Government knows well from the history of recent years that this would have been the prelude to a procession of similar claims and we should have been back to square one with the raging inflation that we have experienced in recent years.
Normally, the leadership of the trade unions are willing to negotiate, and we can see throughout the national scene today leaders of unions who have negotiated recent wage levels at somewhere between 7 and 10 per cent. I would say that, in face of the National Coal Board's final offer, it was reasonable to expect that the National Union of Mineworkers
72
would agree to negotiate. For that reason alone I would reject the charge of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that the Government should have acted sooner to take emergency powers in order to safeguard the nation's supplies. It is always difficult to decide what the right timing is. If the Government act too soon they may prejudice the chance of the union leaders coming to the negotiating table and negotiating a settlement.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the point that the Government ought to have acted sooner did not relate to the emergency powers but related to the appointment of a Court of Inquiry which in my opinion could have been set up at least three weeks earlier.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I am coming to the Court of Inquiry in a minute. Normally, fortunately for everybody, union leaders and employers, whether in the public or in the private sector, do manage to get around the table and do manage to settle these disputes by agreement.
Finally, a word about the nature of picketing. May I join in thanks to my noble friend the Lord Chancellor for his valuable and authoritative exposition on this difficult subject, and say also how much I enjoyed the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and my noble friend Lord Conesford? The measure of intimidation and violence employed by some pickets, particularly in interfering with workers and supplies at electricity generating stations, has undoubtedly significantly worsened the supply position and was not anticipated by Her Majesty's Government. It could not have been. The Government can hardly be criticised if they made any mistake on timing on this account.
To what extent this kind of picketing has occurred I am not prepared to express an opinion. We do not know. We know that some did occur, because we saw it, but I am prepared to accept that in many cases pickets behaved perfectly reasonably. In so far as there was any intimidation or violence, there was undoubtedly a breach of the law, and this was something the Government could not have expected. But we do know that the

73
effect has been that there are some 2 million tons of stocks of coal at the power stations which are now immobilised because the Generating Board has not been able to use them, either directly or because of shortage of the various supplements that are necessary in the use of this solid fuel. So, in regard to timing, I would urge that the Government's original estimate that the power stations had some eight weeks' supply of fuel—that was the statement they made on January 9—was probably not far out, if the extra two weeks are taken into account. In the light of these events, I maintain that Her Majesty's Government were right to give the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers a last chance to negotiate last week. And, in the light of the last offer made, I roundly say that I felt, and I believe a great many people felt, profound disappointment that the National Union of Mineworkers rejected it out of hand. In my opinion, the responsibility lies squarely on their shoulders and not on the Government's.
The one ray of light I welcome in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, was his reference to the appointment of the Court of Inquiry. I join with him in welcoming it, and particularly in his welcome to our distinguished friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, as Chairman. Despite my criticism of the noble Lord's decision to go into the Division Lobby, I felt that his comments on the setting up of the Court of Inquiry, and the statement that he welcomed it, boded well; and I most earnestly hope that this implies that the Labour Party will use its influence with the National Union of Mineworkers to accept the Court's recommendation when it comes. Because at this moment in time, during an urgent fuel crisis, the issue at stake, as we all well know, is the life of the whole nation. The miners and their families are a very important part of the whole nation, but they are only a part of it and they must take second place to the interests of the whole. It is the Government's responsibility to protect the rights of our people against inflation, which has done so much harm in recent years—and here the Government are having a substantial measure of success—and equally, to protect the interests of the private citizen
74
and the nation as a whole against strong-arm methods by any section of the community against the rest. It is in that spirit, my Lords, that I urge your Lordships to go into the Lobby—I wish it would be unanimous—to support this Motion.
6.3 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, accused us of partisanship, and then accused the mineworkers of not wanting to negotiate. Here is a trade union which has not had a strike since 1926 It does not seem really, on the face of it, a union which does not want to negotiate and avoid strikes. Lord Nugent himself exposed his non-partisanship by saying that the miners should have submitted their claim to the Reference Board. He could not have read my speech on the miners' strike made a few weeks ago, because had he done so he would have seen that that Board consisted of I. retired civil servant who acted as a counsellor to a large company, with two members, one a publicity counsellor of another trade association, and a so-called academic whose bitterness against trade unions is well known. This is what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, wants the miners to accept as an impartial body. Well, I congratulate him!
LORD NUGENT or GUILDFORD: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Yes. I gave myself the pleasure of reading the noble Lord's speech, but I reached a different conclusion from his about the impartiality of this body.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. was entirely guided by non-partisanship, while I am very partisan. I am partisan between good and bad.
My Lords, we are asked to approve emergency powers for this Government. In normal circumstances as their have been since the war, of course one would have granted these emergency powers as of right, on the nod. "Butskell' could have had it and "Gaitler" could have had it. But this is not a normal postwar British Government at all; this is something quite different. This is a Government which depletes the ranks of

75
the Judicial part of this House with extreme rapidity, exporting them to either coal Inquiries or Northern Ireland Inquiries. We have seen an exacerbation, indeed an escalation, in another part of this country as the result of ill-considered or non-considered steps of this Government. Can one be sure that the Government here will not follow their policy nearer to the capital? Britain was a pleasant country to live in until this Government came into power. It was a country which showed that Marx can be taken as an object of scepticism, not as a major describer of actualities. We had no class war or even class hostility in this country before this Government came to office. We now have both, and mainly thanks to the obstinate stupidity of the Prime Minister in extolling abrasive competition and positively favouring those who have against those who have not. The characteristic performance of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack shows with blinding clarity the cause of our difficulties. The lawfulness of picketing is irrelevant.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord may describe my intervention as characteristic but it was directly the result of an invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, among others, to state what, so far as I knew, on behalf of the Government, were the general principles of the law. That is all I did. If the noble Lord thinks I was inaccurate he is well entitled to say so, but I only responded to an invitation which came from three quarters of the House.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I stand corrected. But it is still irrelevant, I fear. It is irrelevant if we want to establish a society which can combine stability and full employment. If you want to have conditions in which we can securely go into the Common Market. or indeed exist outside, it is not by lawfulness or unlawfulness in this connection that we are going to get them.
The departmental structure is obviously absolutely hopeless. Ministerial control, as this case has shown. is almost nonexistent. Some of my friends have emphasised here the special case of the miners. of course the miners have a special case; but so were so many others. We had a special case even for the noble
76
and learned Lord on the Woolsack. His salary for being on the Woolsack was reduced by £1,500, but his overall salary went up quite nicely. The civil servants were a special case. Indeed, everybody is a special case. How can we, without a central body, without having a packaged deal on the national level, deal with these matters? Obviously what we are now having are demands for higher wages, and it is obvious that this will continue. Noble Lords may laugh but it is not a laughing matter; it is a tragic matter. However, I do not want to detain your Lordships now, because we are going to discuss these matters to-morrow. The only appropriate simile I can find to this sort of negotiation is that everybody is somebody and nobody is anybody. That is what is so tragic about it. In the rat race we are trying to catch up with each other and we end by imperilling the prosperity of the country. To-day I can only say that I cannot entrust this Government with these powers.
6.10 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, was correct in his assessment of the position: the Labour Party sides with the mineworkers; the Conservative Party, as exemplified in the course of the debate in the other place yesterday. sides with the Government. There is not the least doubt that noble Lords on the Conservative Benches opposite will also support the Government. That is how the matter stands.
We can deal with the merits of the coal dispute, and indeed that it partly the purpose of this debate. but there have been irrelevancies. The noble Lord. Lord Nugent, embarked on one such irrelevancy. He referred to the situation in the farming industry and compared it with the right rates of pay offered to the mineworkers. Is he not a little ashamed of the low wages paid to those associated with farming in the United Kingdom? If he is not ashamed it is obvious that the Conservative Party's policy, if it has the power, will be to depress the living standards of the workers of this country. Indeed, they embarked on this policy after the last Election.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, will the noble Lord be kind enough to give way for a moment? Certainly I would like to see the farm

77
workers' wages higher, but the last two wages increases which have been made—and they are statutorily controlled, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will know —in January of this year and the previous January, in other words, while this Government have been in office, are the two biggest wage increases that the industry has ever had.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, no matter what the wage rates of the farming community are at present they are far too low, and any attempt to improve their living standards has been resisted over and over again by the farmers, many of whom sit on the Government Benches. But we are not discussing the wage rates of farmworkers; the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, embarked on a comparison and thus he provoked me into making this brief observation on that aspect of the subject.
We had a somewhat lengthy dissertation on the legal aspects of picketing. It may be that the generalisations—I use the term that was used by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—may Prejudice some of the cases that come before the court. Men engaged in picketing are accused of illegal or unlawful activity. but that may not be so in this case. In my submission, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, went pretty near the bone and I only hope that the judges who are empowered to try those cases will pay little or no attention to the observations made by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack.
There is another observation I wish to make in this respect. If there is such anxiety to ascertain the facts relating to what is called "illegal and unlawful picketing", why did not the Law Officer in the other place say something on the subject? It may be that there was no request in the other place during the course of yesterday's debate for a lengthy (or even a limited) exposition of the subject. Why was it left to your Lordships' House? It was the noble Lord, Lord Byers, who raised the subject. What was the content of his speech. and indeed what was the purpose of it? Let us take the content of it first—"Ah, the millers deserve better treatment". Then said the noble Lord, Lord Byers, "Of course they do, but we cannot go too far". In other words, the miners should only go
78
just as far as the noble Lord, Lord Byers—an industrial tycoon—along with his associates, will permit. That is the situation. So he has indulged in the obvious diversion, if I may use an old expression which I am sure is familiar to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack: if you have: lot got a case, abuse the plaintiff. So, if you have not got a case against the miners then attack them, in an indirect, oblique fashion, and refer to illegal picketing.
What is more, the noble Lord, Lord Byers. referred to violence, as ii violence had been general up and down the country throughout the coalfields. There is not a substratum of truth in that. Of course there has been picketing; men have been desperate and have been in conflict with the police. Many of the police have sought to restrain themselves. On the other hand, many of tie police have been under instructions from chief constables in various parts of the coalfields—and everyone knows w lat chief constables are: members of the county golf clubs: they go hunting, they mix with members of the Conservative Party and they do not care very much about the miners. I would like to know what their actual instructions were. But we will not discuss in this debate whether picketing is desirable or not, whether it is lawful or legal or not. That is not the subject. The issue is whether we can support the Government in the presentation of emergency powers.
In that connection I am going to make one preliminary observation. I want to say one thing and I hope that my noble friends on this side of the House will permit me to say it. But whether they permit me or not, I shall say it. It is the prerogative of any Government to introduce emergency powers. I have been a member of Governments that introduced emergency powers. The question is not whether the Government have the right, the prerogative, the privilege or indeed the responsibility of introducing emergency powers: the question is whether there is justification at any moment of time for undertaking that task. That is the issue.
What is this issue all about? The situation is that the miners say: "We want better rates of pay". They approach the National Coal Board, and the National Coal Board say: "We cannot afford it

79
but we will give you something". When asked: "What?" they say: "We will give you something that is equivalent to the norm"—stated over and over again by Mr. Heath and company, namely, seven point something per cent. That is what they said. The National Coal Board were carrying out their instructions. They have a case—the financial structure. Just look upon this typical situation. The Board add: "Moreover, if we increase the miners' wages the price of coal will go up", as though the price has not been going up all the time. If we take comparable rates per ton of coal in this country, the rates are enormous in comparison with what they were, not because miners' wages have increased but for a variety of other reasons, in particular including the quite appropriate efforts on the part of various members of various National Coal Boards to mechanise the pits, to rationalise them, to make them more effective, to introduce modern equipment in order to increase the manpower production of the men who are employed in the mines. They have done that. It costs a lot of money, and the National Coal Board, the present Board and Boards which preceded them, have had to pay high rates of interest on the capital invested by them, compulsorily invested by them, because without that investment it would have been impossible even to produce the coal that has been produced before this strike began. That is the situation.
The Government say the miners have been demanding too much, but in point of fact the Government now recognise, as indeed the country recognises, as indeed noble Lords opposite must recognise, that the miners have got a case for more than the National Coal Board offer. In point of fact the offer made by the National Coal Board was derisory. Why do I say that? Because now we are told the miners should accept what amounts to a £4 increase, a £22 minimum wage, a substantial increase beyond what the National Coal Board offered. So what was offered in the first instance was derisory. The case has been made out.
Then why emergency powers? Because there is not enough coal. But we are told there are 9 million tons of coal in the stocks and 4 million tons of coal
80
at the disposal of the Electricity Generating Board. Indeed we have been told from the start that it would be possible to avert anything in the nature of a stoppage or a blackout or a reduction in power, either in industries or for domestic purposes, because there was sufficient coal for eight or nine weeks. That was what we were told. And it was because the Government believed, or at any rate asserted—whether they believed it is beside the point—that there was sufficient coal for seven weeks that they were able to ignore the miners with the contempt which they indulge in when
it suits their purpose. That is the position. If the Government had believed that there was not more than four weeks' supply available, if the Government had believed that it would be impossible to go beyond three or four weeks without introducing emergency powers, if the Government had believed the miners would not take it lying down but act in some instances like desperate men, very often provoked into desperation, then the National Coal Board would have made a much more substantial offer.
But what did that mean? More inflation. I want to make another proposition which is a principle which I think ought to be acceptable to every Member of your Lordships' House. We ought to curb inflation if it is possible to do it, of course. Nobody likes inflation, any more than anybody likes emergency powers with all the consequences of emergency powers and an emergency situation. But consider what the situation is. Here we have a large section of industry under national control, operating by corporations, by boards. and here we have a large section of industry under private enterprise, private ownership. What is happening? Look on this picture and on that. Take the private section. The motor firm of Chrysler recently increased wages by £4 or £5 a week.
A NOBLE LORD: £6.
LORD SHINWELL: Maybe £6; at any rate, increases far beyond anything offered to the miners. The comparison of the kind of work undertaken, the hardships, difficulties and casualties, must be obvious to everybody. Indeed, in almost every sector of private ownership

81
in this country since the Government came in there have been substantial increases in wage rates leading to higher living standards, whereas in regard to the public sector they have been held down to a norm which the Government must know in their hearts is far less than those in the public sector are entitled to. So when we are talking about inflation, and the desire, which is wholehearted, universal, in this country to curb inflation, what are the Government doing? It makes the impact on those in the public sector. It may be said they have no responsibility for, no power over, those in the private sector. It was possible for them to go to C.B.I. and come to some arrangement for the purpose of restricting the rise in food prices and other prices to 5 per cent. Was it impossible for them to use their influence with the C.B.I. and those associated with the C.B.I. in order to curb inflation in the private sector, or were they afraid that it would lead to a series of industrial disputes? So on behalf of the Labour Party I say that the miners have got a case.
Now take this question of illegal picketing. There was a sense of unreality when the noble Lord, Lord Byers, the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, raised the matter. I shall tell noble Lords why. Because almost simultaneously with those speeches, indeed before those speeches had been delivered, even in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, to say nothing of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in the Evening Standard and the Evening News (and those are organs of unimpeachable veracity; they never tell anything but the truth) there was a declaration by Mr. Gormley to terminate mass picketing—nothing but peaceful picketing, indeed in certain parts of the coalfields no picketing at all. Why did Mr. Gormley say this? Because, he said, we have now got an Inquiry and we know that that Inquiry will result in a much more substantial wage than was offered originally by the National Coal Board. So where was the reality in all these dissertations and discussions about illegal picketing? It would be advisable for noble Lords before they make their speeches to go into the Library and read the newspapers or look at the tape,
82
as I did; they would discover that their speeches are unnecessary or completely irrelevant.
Where are we now? I shall tell your Lordships. We are back where we were in the last mining debate. Do not forget what was said on that occasion: we need a fuel and power policy. We have not got one—with electricity standing on its own head, gas standing on its own feet, coal in between, insecure, uncertain and told over and over again, "We do not know how long you are going to last". The workers of the coal industry are never certain about whether the pit in which they are employed is going to linger on or be closed down. It may be that it is the insecurity among the mineworkers that causes this appearance of desperation that has been exemplified recently in some parts of the coalfields. We require a fuel and power policy; coordination of electricity generation, gas production, North Sea gas, oil, and even nuclear energy. In parenthesis, may I remark that the vast sums of money that have been spent by the State in the production, development and research in relation to nuclear energy have led to practically nothing. We want coordination with the whole of the fuel and power industries; and the sooner the Government get down to that the better it will be for the country.
There has been a great deal of talk about keeping in mind the national interest, and I agree with almost every word that has been said about it. In my opinion, the national interest must always be No. 1 priority. But when we are concerned about the national interest we cannot disregard some sectors associated with the national interest; and particularly when we have a Government who claim to be anxious to improve the lot of the people by reducing prices, about which there has been so much boasting with such little performance.
Finally, a word about the Prime Minister. The Sunday Telegraph, of all papers, Tory to the hone, had a leading article; and look at the headline: "We want another Baldwin". Nothing that has been said on this side of the House against the Prime Minister—and I listened to the speech of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield criticising the Prime Minister in very mild, muted tones—or even in the other place yesterday,

83
compares with what the Sunday Telegraph said. "We want another Baldwin"—another leader, and how rightly! Obstinate; obdurate; arrogant; almost perverse: if I can use a gem used by the late lamented Neville Chamberlain over and over again about his critics: bungler, amateurish, a political apprentice with an awful lot to learn. Yes, comparing him with some of the Conservative Prime Ministers of this country—Balfour, at the beginning of this century; Baldwin; even Bonar Law for 12 months; Macmillan (what a tower of strength in comparison!)—it is about time your Lordships were a little ashamed of him.
There it is. What are we going to do about it? We know that to-night the Labour Party will go into the Lobby and, whether we like it or not, we shall have to accept the emergency powers, for what help they are going to be. We shall have a report from the Wilberforce Committee, and no doubt they will add a little to what was offered by the National Coal Board on two occasions since the beginning of this dispute, and the miners will go back to work. But not all of them will go back to work; some of them will not be able to go back because of the condition of the pits, so I believe, although I think that matter has been grossly exaggerated. I have had experience as a Minister connected with the mining industry way back to 1924, and I know that it is often found, when a pit is waterlogged or even when the equipment has deteriorated, that it is possible to recover it very rapidly. Many miners will not want to go back. If it were not for the one million unemployed in the country many miners would not go back to the mining industry. Those who are always telling us that after all the conditions are very good—like the noble Lord. Lord Nugent of Guildford, who said they are going to get a minimum wage of £22—and many of the newspaper scribes who have said that the conditions are not so dangerous in the pits as is said, can go and dig the coal themselves.
We must vote against the Government to-night, not because we are against emergency powers as such but because of the wrong timing. the miscalculations, and the attitude of the Prime Minister who, during this dispute, has done practically nothing. There has been no attempt to bring both parties together. There was
84
an occasion when we had the seamen's dispute rather more than two years ago when complaints were made that the former Minister of Labour, Mr. Gunter. failed to bring both sides together and the dispute lasted seven or eight weeks. It is the responsibility and duty of a Minister associated with industry and employment to bring the parties together at the earliest possible stage. I am satisfied that both parties would have come together under the auspices of the Minister responsible if they had been invited in the proper fashion. They were treated with contempt ail the way through, and now we have this grave disaster which we all deplore and which we want to bring to an end as rapidly as possible.
6.36 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, my noble friend and Leader in opening this debate said he would go fairly wide and that he expected the debate to go wide. Certainly Lord Shinwell's speech in that respect has been typical of the debate, with his kaleidoscopic oratory. He sought to justify going into the Lobby against the Motion—which is quite a simple one, as to whether we approve or disapprove the continuance of the emergency powers—as did the noble Lord, Lord Champion, by claiming that it was a protest against the Government. The tenor of the debate as a whole has been that these emergency powers are necessary. Noble Lords opposite are welcome to the luxury of going into the Lobby against the Government. It is a luxury because they would not do it if they thought that there was any chance of defeating the Government. They know that these powers are necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, started off on a very moderate note. He waxed more and more critical of the Government as his speech went on, but I really do not think that, if the noble Lord were fully aware of the facts, he would have been able to make such a speech as he made. I hope to be able to tell him some of the facts of which he apparently was not aware. He said that the Government had stood back and hoped that market forces would produce a settlement. However, the National Union of Mineworkers, on January 6, declined the invitation of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment, to enter into talks at

85
his office. On January 18, as my noble friend Lord Nugent said, my right honourable friend again emphasised in another place that his door was wide open to both sides for any help which he could give. This was no nonchalant, flippant statement, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, suggested; it was a constructive offer of his assistance. It was one of the initiatives which led, on January 21, to him seeing representatives of the National Coal Board and the Union. Although both parties felt unable to change their positions, he declared publicly that he would continue to consider any possibilities of further action, and would keep in touch with the parties. On February 9 my right honourable friend again persuaded both sides to come to St. James's Square, and he and his officials did everything possible to promote a settlement. As your Lordships know, the National Union of Mineworkers rejected the much improved offer by the National Coal Board at that meeting. I submit that in the light of the evidence I have mentioned, the Government stand acquitted of the charge of having stood back throughout the dispute. They have actively sought to help both parties towards a settlement.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion asked: Why leave it so late to appoint a court of inquiry? Why spring the decision on industry? This decision was not sprung on industry. The Government had stated at the outset that there were eight weeks' supply of coal for electricity. This is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, mentioned. He said that the declaration of emergency was bound to come. After live weeks, it must have been obvious to all that the taking of emergency powers was imminent. The papers had been full of warnings the previous week-end. In the fifth week, the parties were at last brought together again. The noble Lord said that no meaningful consultation took place, but I want to tell your Lordships that consultation took place at all levels; that there was a considerable amount of preparation; that the preparation for an emergency of this kind went back to the autumn; that the electricity boards were in touch with their customers in all the regions; and that it was on this basis that it was possible to make the plans. I was challenged on the point of consultation, but, as I said, there was very full consultation at all levels and
86
your Lordships should ask noble Lords who know. Many of them or both sides of the House have been consulted and have been able to take steps or to make representations on this matter.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as my companies have certainly not been consulted, I wonder whether the noble Lord can make available in the Library a copy of the letter which the noble Earl the Leader of the House said was sent out, intimating to companies what action they should take. Will the noble Lord undertake to look into this?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a mistake. It was not a question of sending out information to firms telling them what was going to happen. What happened was this. The electricity boards were authorised to undertake confidential consultations in the autumn when these seemed necessary, and many such discussions took place; for example, with firms with continuous process plants that may have been unable to comply safely with the directions. The extent of the consultations was left to the discretion of area boards but there was at least one area board that consulted all its major consumers.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, will the noble Lord be good enough to tell us when industry was told that it was going to be put on a three-day week?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that is a different matter and I am coming to it.
LORD SHEPHERD: Twenty thousand letters.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, 20,000 letters had obviously been prepared in advance to send out to those customers whose demand was 100 kilowatts or more. These had obviously been carefully prepared. They could not have been sent out on that day unless they had.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Can the noble Lord—
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords. I cannot give way all the time. I was challenged about consultation. All this was done in the light of consultation and it was therefore possible when the time

87
came, when it was obvious that an emergency had descended upon us, to send out the letters. But the scheme had to be carefully worked out, and it was only when the decision was made that the letters were sent out and promulgated.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord then telling us that, although there were these consultations last autumn, it was still necessary to give only 24 hours' notice that these cuts were to be made?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we had come into an emergency. The fact was that at that stage we had a rejection of an improved offer by the National Coal Board. The following day we had a rejection of the suggestion that the offer should be taken up by the miners and that they should go back to work while a Court of Inquiry investigated the position and the Coal Board itself said that it was prepared to implement the findings of the Court of Inquiry, whatever they were. It was on that basis that we arrived at that situation. The situation at that time was that we had a limited supply of coal with which to work.
LORD BLYTON: Can the noble Lord—
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords, I really cannot go on giving way all the time. The situation at that time was that industry, generally using about 75 per cent. of its normal consumption of coal, still had three weeks' supply in all except three regions. The power stations were down to three weeks' supply, taking into account stocks which were being denied to them. Obviously, this was the moment at which to declare the emergency. Noble Lords are arguing from time to time that it should have been declared earlier. On the other hand, they are proposing to vote against giving emergency powers now. Noble Lords really must make up their minds what they want.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, did a great service to the House, as did my noble friend Lord Conesford, in raising the question of picketing. I have listened quietly throughout the debate and I hope that noble Lords will extend to me the same courtesy. As I said, they did a great service in raising this question of
88
picketing as it affects the liberty of the subject. My noble friend Lord Conesford, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, have dealt with this matter, but they have left me to deal with important points that were raised. I want to make it quite plain that no instructions—and "instructions" is the word that was used—have been issued to the police. The Home Secretary has no power to issue such instructions. Chief constables were reminded early—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Ah!
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is the normal way to do it—of the law relating to picketing in particular, Section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, and Section 2 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906. Guidance was later given to chief constables about the importance of close consultation. The first was telling them where to look for the law, and the other was giving them guidance about practical matters. They were told of the importance of close consultation between the local trade union officials and local senior police officers in ensuring that picketing is conducted properly and peacefully.
It is the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to maintain law and order, and this is done through the chief constables. They are responsible for law and order in their own areas. I am bound to say that I think the House ought to be grateful to them—and I do not think this has been sufficiently appreciated—that they have kept all feeling, all emotion, down. It may be that they have done this by way of turning a blind eye from time to time to particular offences. But, at any rate, it is very much to the credit of the police in this country that in what was undoubtedly a highly contentious situation they succeeded in getting through with so few incidents. It is, of course, for the courts to interpret the law; and I hope that I may leave the matter there.
My Lords, something has been said about the restructuring of the finances of the Coal Board. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, both mentioned this. The noble Lord, Lord Blyton, quite correctly quoted what my right honourable friend the Minister for Industry said in another place; and it is a fact, of course, that the

89
restructuring of the finances of the Coal Board have been under consideration for some time. But this has nothing to do with the present issue. One has to remember, after all, that in respect of the Coal Board's finances over £400 million has already been written off. This is a matter which can be considered at the proper time; but the issue that we really had to deal with was, on the one hand, a very high claim by the National Union of Mineworkers and, on the other, an offer by the National Coal Board which was raised three times—and the last offer was, in ordinary terms, about 50 per cent. higher than the original offer.
Perhaps I may be allowed to say just this, because noble Lords have raised the question of justice. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, spoke about justice; and naturally we all want to see justice for every section of the community. We want to see justice for the miners. But perhaps it is not out of place to point out—and I hope I am not in any way prejudicing anything by saying this—that at the time when the present Government came into power the minimum wage for miners was £15. It is now £18; and if the offer that was put forward had been accepted, the minimum wage in the mining industry would have been £22. So it has gone up from £15 to, as it would have been, £22 in less than two years.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
A NOBLE LORD: Sit down!
LORD BLYTON: I have asked the noble Lord quite civilly, and he has given way. Why all the shouting?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD BLYTON: Dealing with the financial structure, it is only belatedly that the Government have now made an announcement. These accounts have been used against us all the way, and the offers that have been made we have considered totally inadequate. It has been this millstone around our neck which has caused the present situation.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the Government have always been willing to look into this problem, but, as I say, there has already been a reorganisation of the finances. The finances can be reorganised if necessary; but what no Government are prepared to do, as my right honourable friend said in another place, is to subsidise wage increases.
I hope that noble Lords will now allow me to draw to a close. The point that I think I must revert to here is this. The nation is now in a serious emergency. This is not the time to discuss the extent to which the parties to the dispute or the Government are responsible. Some think the Government have been determined to drive the miners into the ground; some think the miners have been determined to drive the nation into the ground. But the question is whether we are going to approve these emergency powers or not. Noble Lords have criticaised us for not introducing them sooner. They cannot at the same time say that they are not now necessary. These powers are not directed against anyone. They are not designed—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Blyton—to break the strike. They are obviously not designed for that purpose, because they are so similar to what has been introduced before. Their purpose is to protect the life of the community. It cannot be denied that there is an emergency. Everyone recognises that, in an emergency, the Government must be given powers to protect the life of the community. Everyone recognises that, in an emergency, available supplies have to be shared out. These Regulations give the powers necessary to do so. These powers are very similar to those previously given to Government in similar, though probably less serious circumstances. I invite all your Lordships to approve these powers.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
6.56 p.m.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 135: Not-Contents, 53.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Arran, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Allerton, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Bathurst, E.

Amherest of Hackney, L.

Auckland, L.

Beatty, E.

Amory, V.

Balerno, L.

Beaumont, L.

Exeter, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Falkland, V.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Moyne, L.

Bessborough, E.

Ferrier, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Bethell, L.

Fortescue, E.

Northchurch, Bs.

Blakenham, V.

Gainford, L.

Norwich, V.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Goschen, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brecon, L.

Gowrie, R.

Onslow, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Greenway, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gridley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Buchan, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reigate, L.

Caccia, L.

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

Roberthall, L.

Caldecote, V.

Rockley, L.

Camrose, V.

Hood, V.

Rowallan, L.

Carrick, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Carrington, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

St. Helens, L.

Chelmer, L.

Ilford, L.

St. Just, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Inchyra, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Clwyd, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sandford, L.

Coleraine, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sandys, L.

Conesford, L.

Jessel, L.

Savile, L.

Cowley, E.

Kilmany, L.

Selkirk, E.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Craigmyle, L.

Kindersley, L.

Shawcross, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Somers, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stamp, L.

Strange, L.

Cromartie, E.

Leicester, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lothian, M.

Sudeley, L.

Daventry, V.

Loudoun, C.

Swansea, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swinton, E.

De L'Isle, V.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Thorneycroft, L.

Derwent, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Dudley, E.

Margadale, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Dulverton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vernon, L.

Dundonald, E.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Eccles, V.

Mersey, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Effingham, E.

Milverton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Monek, V.

Young, Bs.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Arwyn, L.

Gaitskell. Bs.

Popplewell, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L.

Raglan, L.

Balogh, L.

Hoy, L.

Royle, L.

Beswick, L.

Janner, L.

Rusholme, L.

Blyton, L.

Kennet, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Leatherland, L.

Serota, Bs.

Burntwood, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Shepherd, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Shinwell, L.

Chalfont, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Snow, L.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

MeLeavy, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Maelor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Diamond, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

White, Bs.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Moyle, L.

Energlyn, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

ELECTRICITY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

MINERAL EXPLORATION AND INVESTMENT GRANTS BILL
7.6 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, as a noble Lord has given me notice that he wishes to speak on the Committee stage of this Bill I shall not move that the Order of Commitment be discharged. Instead, in accordance with Standing Order No. 43, I beg to move that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness WOOTTON OF ABINGER
in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Contributions in respect of mineral exploration]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: First, I am grateful to the noble Earl for making it possible for me to say a very few words on the question of whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill. I do so in the hope that this will be a more constructive way of dealing with the matter I wish to raise than by putting down an Amendment. I propose to deal with only one matter which was referred to during the Second Reading debate on February 3. Many of your Lordships (I think I am right in saying "many", for I think there were at least four) took an interest in a particular point. These were noble Lords, from all parts of the House, who took an interest in that aspect of the Bill concerned with the preservation of the amenities of the countryside and, in particular, with the need to consult the Natural Environment Research Council—or bodies which are, as I understand it, part of that Council—with regard to any proposal which might affect areas of particular interest. That, at least, was the first idea; but the noble Earl was good enough to say:
94
"… in all cases where an application is received, irrespective of whether it covers these particular areas,"—
the areas of special interest which I have mentioned—
"there will be consultation with the NERC"—
I say "N.E.R.C.". I prefer not to call it "NERC", because "NERC" has undertones in connection with another Act that we debated for many moons—
"because they are the people who know where the areas are and whether such a proposal is likely to affect any area in which they are interested."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2/2/72, col. 1043.]
I am delighted that the noble Earl said that. I am sure that he gave considerable consolation and relief to those who were raising this very point. But in my usual awkward way I then rose and asked the noble Earl where this compulsion was to be found in the Bill, and the noble Earl, with his usual frankness, said that it was not to be found in the Bill. He said:
"It is an assurance that I have given the noble Lord as to what the Minister intends to do."
The noble Earl is sufficiently experienced in these matters to know that it is no discourtesy to him personally to say that such an assurance is valuable, but would count for nought if proceedings were to be taken after a Minister had failed to consult in this way. Nobody could found an action against the Minister on the ground that somebody had said at some stage or other when the Bill was going through one or other House that certain consultations would take place. It is therefore necessary to strengthen that in some way, and I was wondering whether it was the noble Earl's intention to strengthen it by introducing an appropriate Amendment into the Bill. I should not have been surprised to see an Amendment put down. Of course we have plenty of time to do that.
It is an important issue, and it is completely non-contentious. The request for this kind of consultation and this kind of special interest came, I assure your Lordships—and those who were here at the time will remember this—from all quarters of your Lordships' House. I am merely doing what I think is the appropriate duty of an Opposition in drawing the attention of the Government to things that they should do perhaps a little better than they are proposing

95
to do them. They are proposing to consult; and that is fine. But they are not proposing to put into the Bill their statutory responsibility to consult. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to say that at some stage, perhaps at a later stage in the Bill's progress, such an Amendment will be introduced by the Government, in whatever form of words suits them. It is not a question of my trying to suggest a particular form of words that suits us; whatever suits the Government, in order to carry out the undertaking which they gave but which is not to be found in the Bill, will suffice.
7.4 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: The noble Lord has, with his usual clarity, made perfectly plain what he wants the Government to do. The point that he referred to was one which was considered carefully by a number of noble Lords in Committee. The noble Lord was kind enough to say that this is not a contentious matter, and he merely wants the assurance that the Government then gave—which in fact I gave on behalf of the Minister—to be written into the Bill. I hope he will recognise that when I gave that assurance, which he has repeated this evening, it was no off-the-cuff remark but was a considered assurance of what the Minister intends to do.
What we are concerned with here is the initial exploration which will be done and which may consist of a person's walking over land and taking samples, possibly of soil or rock. In doing so he may destroy or walk upon vital and unique bits of flora, and possibly disturb animals and birds. We absolutely accept that this is a very reasonable concern. It is the reason why we have given the assurance that all applications which are received under Clause 1 of the Bill will be referred to the N.E.R.C. We must remember that this particular stage of exploration is not a very expensive one. If one makes the scheme too circumscribed, I think it is well possible that the explorer may go ahead with this part of the exploration without any grant aid. In other words, he may say: "If the scheme is going to be so difficult and to be hedged about with so many things, then I would rather forgo the grant and go ahead on my own." In that case of course there
96
will be no reference of his work to the N.E.R.C. I hope that the noble Lord may feel that this in itself is one possible reason why the inclusion of this point in the Bill would be a bad thing.
Again, one must recognise that we are concerned here with only a limited range of exploration. For instance, products such as gravel, sand, hydrocarbons and coal are not covered by the scheme. Similar initial exploration for these commodities would not go before the N.E.R.C. Obviously it is just as important to protect nature reserves from this type of exploration as it is for that which is covered by the Bill. If further protection is required—and I am not convinced that it is—for nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest, I suggest that the right course would he for amending legislation to provide the protection not only for exploration under this Bill but for exploration for any minerals, and indeed for any intrusion.
I hope the noble Lord will accept the assurance that I have given him, and also the fact that we have considered the possibility of writing this matter into the Bill and have come to the conclusion that if we make the Bill too restrictive, we shall not enhance the incentive effect of the Bill but will detract from it.
LORD DIAMOND: I am grateful to the noble Earl and recognise immediately that careful consideration has been given to this matter. I am glad that he has repeated the assurance in full detail and said that it was not given off-the-cuff, because that adds weight to it, which is always welcome. I do not, however, completely give up hope that he will take this further thought and consider it. I would agree with him entirely that the only really adequate method of dealing with this matter and protecting the environment, which is an interest that we all share, is to have amending legislation which covers all kinds of exploration—sand, gravel and all the rest. It merely occurred to me that as we have this Bill here, a great deal could he done by the Government's setting a pattern which others would he expected to follow. It is not unusual for those, for instance, who may be exploring for sand and gravel to say to themselves: "It is now accepted as good business attitude for those about to explore to consult the

97
N.E.R.C. This is made clear in the latest Bill and represents the latest thinking of the Government." I find people extremely law-abiding in that sense, and they will take a hint of that kind. All I am saying to the noble Earl is that I hope he will be good enough to consider that point further.
EARL FERRERS: It would be the greatest discourtesy on my part if I were not to take a hint of that kind, and I will certainly see that the remarks the noble Lord has made, which are very pertinent and made in great good faith, are considered.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

PUBLICATION OF PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT
7.20 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER rose to call attention to the First and Second Reports of the Joint Committee on the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament (H.L. 26 of December 3, 1969 and H.L. 109 of May 6, 1970); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Reports to which this refers can conveniently be described as the Pearce/Donovan Reports because, as your Lordships know, although the Joint Select Committee of both Houses was appointed in November, 1968, under Lord Pearce's chairmanship, he was appointed Chairman of the Press Council in 1969 and his place was taken by the noble and learned Lord, the late Lord Donovan. This is a suitable opportunity again to pay tribute to the memory of Lord Donovan and to his great contributions to the affairs of State, to Parliament, to industry, to the trade unions and to the law. I have it on good authority that he drafted these Reports himself, and just as we shall miss the wise and penetrating contributions which he would have made to our debate to-morrow—and indeed also today—so we miss his presence here now, when we debate this subject.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk has told me that he may not be able to stay, but I hope he will. At the same time I would like to say—and I know that he will agree with me—that the noble Lord, Lord Donovan, had expressed a desire to move a Motion of this sort last summer, but the pressure of business in your Lordships' House was too great and it seems to have fallen to me to carry it out at this time. Incidentally, I miss the presence of the noble Lord. Lord Shackleton, and I only hope that the lifts on the ski slopes are working all right. I miss the noble Lord because, in a speech during a debate in March 20, 1969, at column 1077 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he said:
"This is a subject "—
he was referring to this problem of the broadcasting of proceedings—
"in regard to which I think the saying 'festina lente' applies. On the other hand we do not want that to be an excuse for not keeping the whole proposition alive and order active consideration, and proceeding del berately towards the formation of ideas on the whole question of broadcasting."
When I told him that I proposed to quote those words his reply was, "Fair enough".
In the penultimate paragraph of the Second Report the following words occur, and it is really on these words that I base my Motion:
"Some of the questions the Committee has had to consider are difficult and may prove controversial. In these circumstances it seemed to them better to await the outcome of the consideration of this Report by both Houses before the task is commenced of drafting a Bill to implement such of the Committee's recommendations as may be approved."
Further, in paragraph 2 of the First Report the following words occur:
"Yet the immediate cause of the previous Committee's appointment was the need to resolve the uncertainty that has been expressed in several quarters as to the application of the law of defamation to broadcasts of Parliamentary proceedings."
Your Lordships are well aware of our television experiment in February, 1968, four years ago almost to the day, and it was as a result of the Reports of our Select Committee—that is the Select Committee of this House on this particular experiment—together with the extensive Reports of the House of Commons Select Committees on broadcasting their proceedings, that the Pearce/Donovan Joint

99
Select Committee was appointed. Its Reports cover quite a variety of aspects of Parliamentary privilege and the Second Report contains (in Appendices 1 and 2) a very important memorandum by the Clerk Assistant to your Lordships' House and another by the Clerk to the House of Commons. I call to mind also the evidence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, to our Committee on televising procedures. in the course of which, as Lord Chancellor, he said that the law of privilege "needs tidying up". Although, as I have quoted, the broadcasting problem may have, as it were, sparked off this exercise, there are other facets, ranging from freedom of arrest to the privilege attaching to Ministerial correspondence. I know that this latter point is one to which my noble friend Lord Selkirk attaches great importance, as can be seen from the Minutes of Proceedings on page 24 of the Second Report.
I am, of course, particularly glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is going to follow me—he was a member of the Committee throughout—because such matters as I have just mentioned present legal problems on which I do not propose, nor am I qualified, to speak. I also look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, on another point about papers. Therefore I turn back to the problem of privilege as it affects the possibility—and it is well to remember it is still only a possibility—that Parliament may one day not only decide to have its proceedings televised on closed circuit but wish to have some sort of report presented to the people by the broadcasting media, whether by television, radio or both. When I say "some sort of report" I mean video tapes of actual proceedings.
The Committee, as I have said, referred to
"the need to resolve the uncertainty of the law"
on that subject. It is clear from the memoranda submitted by the B.B.C. and the Independent Television Authority which are set out in Appendices to both Reports, that this uncertainty is very real to them. I cannot do better than quote here paragraphs 23 and 24 of the First Report where, on page 12, we have these words:
100
"23. Having carefully considered the whole matter, the Committee have come to the conclusion that, bearing in mind the possibility of the creation of a House of Commons Broadcasting Unit which would 'publish' under the authority of the House of Commons, legislation is desirable to amend sections 1 and 2 of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 as above outlined so as to confer absolute privilege in respect of such publication. When, however, the B.B.C. or I.T.V., having obtained their material from the House of Commons Broadcasting Unit, proceed to broadcast it or extracts from or abstracts of, it to the public, then the qualified privilege at present available to each authority should suffice, as it suffices at present for the Press."
And in paragraph 24 they say:
"The Committee's recommendation in paragraph 14 is, of course, equally applicable in the case of the House of Lords, should it set up its own broadcasting unit."
In other words, while the Committee agree that the 1840 Act requires some amendment, they are satisfied with the present position as regards the privilege of broadcasters. At the same time, as I see it, neither the B.B.C. nor the I.T.A. are satisfied, and without their being agreeable, such broadcasting—I repeat, broadcasting video tapes of actual proceedings—could not proceed.
Despite what the Press may say, the Members of another place are as well if not actually more aware of these difficulties than we are. One has only to delve into the voluminous Reports of their various Committees to appreciate this. I take the view—and I am open to correction—that this debate to-night will show that the complications are such that even if Parliament proceeds forthwith to pursue the points made in the Pearce/ Donovan Report, which we are considering, it may well be two or three years before a decision is reached and the requisite legislation placed upon the Statute Book. We see in the Press that the other place may be thinking of submitting themselves to the ordeal which was ours four years ago, although technical advances since that time will render conditions much less trying than ours were. However, this is their affair, and I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that there is no need, even if it were advisable—which it is not—for us to develop the subject.
Many of your Lordships have given this problem of broadcasting much thought and study. But, so far as I am concerned, my ideas were crystallised the

101
Sunday before last when I read in one of the newspapers words something to this effect: the television screen has now become Sunday before last when I read in one of the newspapers words something to this effect: the television screen has now become the forum for political debate rather than Parliament. This is going too far. But, reluctantly, I believe that the position is somewhat of this order so far as the public are concerned. It may even be that our Parliamentary system of democracy is being eroded in the absence of adequate Parliamentary reports on the "box". But this is not the subject of the present debate. The subject is that first of all the law of privilege requires to be overhauled, whether television is important or not. However, many people may think it is important.
One final comment. Confident as I am that the reporting of the proceedings of Parliament by all existing media, with the exception of the B.B.C. programme, "Today in Parliament", is quite inadequate, I see no good reason why some such programme as "Today in Parliament" should not come out at a more suitable time or times of the day on the country's T.V. receivers. Such a programme would be free of the complexities of the matter of privilege to which we are addressing ourselves to-night. I go so far as to hold the view that if additional hours are to be available for television. as is now the case. then such reporting might well be made an obligation. When I studied (shall I say with some surprise?) an item in The Times Diary the other day my eyes strayed across to the opposite page to a letter from the noble Baroness, Lady White. I see her point, with which, with respect, find myself unable to agree, for I trust that never will my name carry, like some gramophone records, the letters "L.P" as a suffix, though I shall risk it if I detain your Lordships much longer. I. hope that the House will agree when this little debate concludes that it has been worthwhile. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
7.34 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, the House will at once agree with the last comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. His comment was that he hoped that this debate would be regarded as useful. I am quite sure that it is a useful debate, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for having raised this matter which, if he had not called attention to
102
it, might possibly have tended to slip into oblivion.
In replying to his speech, and to the debate, from the Opposition Front Bench may I at the outset say to him what I know the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who was also a member of the Committee, would also wish to say: that we are most grateful to him for his reference to the late Lord Donovan. I am particularly grateful because I think I may claim to have been a close friend of Lord Donovan for even longer than a quarter of a century. It was extremely gratifying to hear what the noble Lord said with regard to him. Lord Donovan, besides being a great lawyer, was indeed a great public servant, and his contributions to the building up of our life really cannot he adequately measured. They were great and will be invaluable for years, decades and generations to come.
May I go to what the noble Lord called the Pearce/Donovan Report? The Committee was chaired by distinguished chairmenship because before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, chaired it the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, chaired it, until, as Lord Ferrier said, he became Chairman of the Press Council. Now he is engaged on difficult and exacting duties and I am sure that we all wish him well.
Possibly it would be convenient, and of some help to the House in considering what are extremely technical and complicated Reports, if I tried to indicate in broad outline what the Committee in effect decided, and what its approach was. It found itself discharging its task against the following background. There had been experiments in the other place and experiments in this House on broadcasting. Certain conclusions had been provisionally reached in both Houses, though I do not think I need elaborate upon them for the purpose of this debate. What I should indicate is this. The possible different forms which broadcasting of proceedings of both Houses might take really fell into three categories. In 1966, a Select Committee of the other place suggested that there might he a broadcasting unit. That was conceived of as a part, in effect, of the machinery of the House. It was conceived of as being something very close to the Hansard structure, both in its manning personnel and in its terms of reference. That was the first possibility.

103
An alternative possibility is what I believe is described in the vernacular as the "drive-in" process. By that, the broadcasting media, the B.B.C. and the I.T.V., would bring their own apparatus into either Chamber and make their own arrangements, with the leave and permission of the two Chambers, to televise the proceedings, or, in the alternative, to record the proceedings in sound without television. The third possibility was a combination of the two. The broadcasting unit would provide a feed to the television authorities. It would prepare a continuous representation of the proceedings in each House and the broadcasting media would be enabled to make use of that continuous record by way of a feed. They would derive sustenance or perhaps I should say inspiration, from it. From that sustenance or inspiration they would compose their own selections of proceedings in the two Houses and make their own commentary and edit it as they thought appropriate.
It was against those three possibilities that the Pearce/Donovan Committee felt it ought to discharge its task. Its task as formulated was to decide what changes in the law of privilege and defamation would be necessary in the event of there being a broadcasting or television scheme applicable to either or both Houses. It was a Joint Select Committee of both Houses and its consideration applied to the possible television or sound recording scheme in either House. My Lords, there had been a Select Committee which reported on Parliamentary Privilege and the Chairman of that Committee had been my honourable and learned friend Mr. Silkin in another place. That Select Committee had gone into the question of Parliamentary Privilege in great detail and had produced a comprehensive and valuable Report. In those circumstances, the Pearce/Donovan Committee felt that clearly its terms of reference were not to be construed as requiring it again to re-examine the conclusions of what I hope I may call the Silkin Committee. So far as Parliamentary Privilege was concerned, it was, we thought, called upon only to express a view as to whether any changes in the law of defamation that it recommended required corresponding changes in the law of Parliamentary Privilege and not beyond that to examine the question of Parliamentary Privilege.
104
It was against that background that we went to work. I think perhaps it would be useful if I formulated the general conclusions upon which we thought we ought to proceed. They were these. We thought that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.. and television media should be, so far as the law of defamation was concerned, on the same footing as the Press. If there were to be the broadcasting unit of which I have spoken we thought that that should be on a rather different footing. That would discharge a function which was precisely analogous to that discharged by Hansard at the moment. Your Lordships, I know, will have considered from time to time the history of Parliamentary Privilege in so far as it affects Hansard, and your Lordships may have read the interesting case of Stockdale v. Hansard which was decided in 1837 in which a Mr. Stockdale complained in the courts in a suit for libel that Hansard, which under the authority of Parliament published Reports, detailed and continuous Reports, of proceedings in Parliament, had libelled Mr. Stockdale, I think by imputing to him libellously that he had circulated a memorandum of an obscene character to the prisoners in Newgate Prison. Precisely the subject of the libel action is not particularly relevant though not altogether uninteresting. The courts allowed that claim, and that gave rise to the passing of what is known as the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840.
My Lords, the Parliamentary Papers Act contains three sections. The first section confers absolute privilege on all publications— I abbreviate deliberately—made with the authority or by the direction of Parliament. It obviously directly covered Hansard and it is accordingly because of Section 1 of the Act of 1840 that the printing in Hansard of what is said in either House is privileged. If a Member makes a defamatory statement in the course of his speech in Parliament he is protected by Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 which gives absolute privilege to anything said in a Parliamentary debate. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights also contains a phrase which is difficult to construe. It gives absolute privilege also to what are called "Proceedings in Parliament". There have been differences of view which we dealt with in our Second Report as to what is the meaning of "Proceedings in

105
Parliament". I will not trouble your Lordships with that. We suggested a formula which might serve as a definition of what is meant by the expression "Proceedings in Parliament"
As I have said, Section 1 gives absolute privilege to Hansard. The conclusion we reached was that if there were a broadcasting unit, that should enjoy equal privilege but it should be a unit which would be part of the structure of Parliament in the same way as Hansard is now part of the structure of Parliament, and its function should be to produce a continuous and uninterrupted record either in the form of television or sound broadcasting of the proceedings in either House. That is that conclusion. If, however, it were decided that there should be the "drive-in" system, as I described it, then it followed in accordance with the conclusion which I earlier indicated that we reached, namely, that the two media should be put on the same footing as the Press, that in respect of their drive-in activities the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. should only have the same protection as the Press now has; that is, that if they print in the course of a newspaper comment or if the television media as a result of drive-in activities reproduced in an edited programme of Parliamentary proceedings something that was defamatory, in either case they should have qualified privilege. Section 3 of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 confers that privilege. I leave out Section 2 for a deliberate reason. I do not think it necessary to examine it closely. It deals with "copies" and it not directly germane to the pith of this debate.
Section 3 confers the qualified privilege. Independent of it—and I hope I am not being too technical—there is at common law a qualified privilege which at the moment is slightly different in one respect, a respect in which we submit in our Report that the two should be made the same. If the Press, the I.TA. or the B.B.C. make a fair and accurate extract from a debate, and they do so without malice, under Section 3, if they can prove they did so without malice, they are immune from proceedings and action against them for defamation would fail. In common law the position is the same except that the onus of showing absence of malice is not upon the newspaper concerned and would not be upon the B.B.C.
106
or the I.T.A. but is on the plaintiff who brings the action. One of our recommendations was that it being rather foolish that there should be that difference, and the reason for the difference being difficult to ascertain, the two types of qualified privilege should be made the same in that respect. For that purpose there would have to be an Amendment to Section 3 of the 1840 Act to remove the onus of proving absence of malice from the Press or television media to the plaintiff who made the complaint against them.
That being the general purport of our conclusions, we then had to consider whether, assuming any of them required to be implemented, depending upon the type of television or broadcast recording that was decided upon, Amendments would be necessary. There would have to be an Amendment—and I will not describe the technical character of it—to Section 1 of the Parliamentary Papers Act in order to make Section 1 applicable to the broadcasting unit, if there were to be a broadcasting unit. A corresponding Amendment would be necessary in Section 2. I have described the Amendment that would be necessary in Section 3 in order to bring together the two types of qualified privilege.
That was what we concluded and that forms the major part of our Report. We had been offered drafting assistance from Parliamentary Counsel, but we came to the conclusion that really it would be unjustifiably occupying their time to call upon them to prepare the necessary; drafting Amendments until it was decided by either House or both Houses whether they wished to have their proceedings televised or recorded by sound broadcasting, or not, and, if so, which of the three systems they would adopt, because the Amendments necessary would depend upon that. Therefore, that is as far as we went. We also construed, as I have said earlier, our terms of reference as going beyond that and we made certain recommendations with regard to what I will call "Act Papers"—and I will not trouble the House with that; "Command Papers"—I will not trouble the House with that; and correspondence between Members of Parliament and Ministers and others. That involved a consideration of the meaning of the phrase "proceedings in Parliament"; and, as I have said,

107
in our Report we suggested a rather comprehensive formula which we thought might be enacted in order to define the expression "proceedings in Parliament" as used in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688.
My Lords, that is the whole of the matter. I hope I have not been too confusing. It is rather difficult to explain it with great clarity because the matter is one of some technicality. That is what we did, and our position at the moment is that we would be delighted. either ourselves or for some successor body to us, when it has been decided what the form of television or sound recording is to be —if there is to be either—then to proceed to work out the actual terms of the Amendments which, according to our thinking, would then be necessary. I do not think I can assist your Lordships further. That is what we did, and it will of course be for both Houses in due course to consider whether they think that our conclusions were justified or need amendment.
7.53 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for having introduced this debate because it enables me shortly to draw attention to the absurdity of the practice which has grown up of what is known as "laying in dummy Act Papers". It is the Second Report, paragraphs 41 to 45, which deals with Act Papers. These are Papers laid before Parliament pursuant to a statutory obligation, and each year there are some 600 of these Act Papers. One finds that about half of them, about 300, are laid before Parliament and receive a printing order from the House of Commons, whereas the other 300 are not published pursuant to a printing order from Parliament. This seems curious; and indeed no wonder the Committee, at the end of their Report, in paragraph 44, say:
"…the Committee draw attention to the somewhat haphazard manner in which printing orders are accorded to some Act Papers, but not to others. They recommend that rules should be prescribed to regulate this matter"
The distinction here of course is that those Papers which are published pursuant to a printing order from Parliament have conferred upon them the absolute privilege which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has explained, whereas the other 300
108
Papers, which are not published pursuant to a printing order from Parliament. receive only qualified privilege. I need not go into the distinction because Lord Stow Hill put the matter before your Lordships so very clearly just now.
Of course, a printing order from Parliament can be obtained only when Parliament is sitting; but of these 300 Act Papers a number are expected to appear during, for instance, the long Summer Recess. What happens then is that during the month of July the Paper concerned is laid in dummy; that is to say, the title page only, and nothing else, is produced and a printing order is obtained. The person concerned then goes away and proceeds to draft his Report, or whatever it may be, in the knowledge that he has the blessing of absolute privilege for it covering even matter which he might publish maliciously and not in good faith. Needless to say, this does not in practice happen, but it seems a rather absurd way of going about things.
Just briefly, three examples of the sort of thing that happens. On August 2 last, 16 Reports from Area Electricity Boards and the Report of the Atomic Energy Authority were laid before Parliament and they were not published until the month of October. If we take the Construction Industry Training Board Report, we find that that was laid on July 27 and, so far as I have been able to discover, has not been published yet. So we have this enormous delay between the laying of a document—and of course an entry appears in the Minutes—and its publication. Here is a document which has been laid, and people who are interested in the subject naturally expect that within a reasonable time they will be able to get hold of a copy of it. We cannot expect all these people to appreciate that all that has happened is an extraordinary charade and that the document concerned is not going to be published for probably weeks, perhaps months or even, I suppose, more than a year. This seems a rather senseless procedure that has grown up. There is everything to be said for a public servant's producing a complete report which can be looked at to see whether it contains objectionable matter, and, if it does not, a printing order from the House of Commons can be forthcoming; but, as against that, there is the ridiculous process of

109
producing a title page and nothing else and getting a printing order for the whole report which may not even have been drafted.
The remedy for this state of affairs can be found if we ask ourselves first the question: do these Act Papers really need absolute privilege? Is not qualified privilege for them enough? If they do not need absolute privilege, then House of Commons printing orders for them can be abolished and these Papers will be published and laid at the proper time. But suppose that absolute privilege really is necessary for these Act Papers, then surely time can be found for a short measure which will give blanket protection for them; a measure which will say that Act Papers when published shall be deemed to have been published pursuant to a Parliamentary printing order; and then, again, the result will be that the absurdity of laying in dummy, and this extraordinary delay, will no longer be necessary.
8.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRKM: My Lords, as a member of the Committee I should like to say a few words. First, may I say how greatly I admired the clarity of mind of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, in repeating to us broadly the problems which the Committee had to face. I would particularly endorse what he said about the late Lord Donovan. I did not know Lord Donovan before this Committee met. Knowing him was a great privilege and I recognise fully the great loss his death is to the public. I also wish to say what a great pleasure it was to work under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, who has, if I may put it this way, a very strong liberal cast of mind, and I would need strong arguments to find myself differing from him in matters which concern human liberty.
I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said. During this examination we found an extraordinary confusion in the subject of Papers. There are enormous numbers of Papers submitted to Parliament in a great variety of forms. The noble Lord is perfectly right when he says that the matter should be looked at. For instance, some Papers were not printed and were not published. I was never wholly able to discover exactly what that meant;
110
nor, indeed, could I find a paper which fell into that category. I think it is desirable that the purpose for which papers are laid should be made much clearer. In my view, we are enormously indebted to the Officers of the House for ensuring that we do not get into a much greater muddle than in fact we do.
The other point I wish to mention concerns the matter of absolute privilege. I find it hard to say that absolute privilege should be extended at all unless there are exceedingly powerful reasons for doing so. To give someone the unfettered right to say what is damaging and untrue about another individual, which might conceivably ruin his whole life, is a Parliamentary privilege which I think should be extended only in the most limited sphere and only after very careful examination. After all, this is not really a question of justice: the purpose of absolute privilege is really to prevent somebody from having the bother of either answering a summons or going to the expense of doing so. Frankly, from a practical point of view qualified privilege would meet almost every case. The real object of absolute privilege is to block any form of action at all. It is all very well to do it under Article IX of the Bill of Rights for discussions in Parliament, which sometimes need definition. but any extension of that would require very careful examination indeed.
On the whole I believe that our Report shows that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the present situation. For that reason I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for raising this subject, because while there are changes which could be made I do not think any serious damage is done by the existing procedure.
8.4 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I do not think there is anything very much that I can usefully say at the end of this debate, especially since the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, who was such a distinguished member of this Committee, has so admirably answered the points that were put by my noble friend Lord Ferrier. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill asked whether he had spoken with great clarity: I have never known the noble Lord not to speak with extreme clarity and I thought he put the case very clearly. Since then my noble friend

111
Lord Selkirk has added his powerful voice. I am sure we should all like to thank my noble friend Lord Ferrier for drawing attention to these two Reports and for giving rise to this short but interesting debate, and I would join with other noble Lords who have spoken in paying tribute to the two Chairmen of this Joint Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, and Lord Donovan.
My noble friend Lord Ferrier has throughout, and for many years now, taken a deep interest in the question of televising the proceedings in Parliament, and he was a most active member of the Select Committee on televising the proceedings of the House of Lords. Your Lordships will recall that it was as a result of evidence from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the whole form of the law relating to publication of proceedings in Parliament needed tidying up that that Committee recommended that there should be a detailed examination of the question of privilege and law involved and that this examination should be undertaken by a Joint Committee of both Houses. This recommendation was endorsed by the Broadcasting sub-committee of the House of Commons Services Committee and resulted in the setting up of the Joint Committee whose two Reports we are considering tonight. Therefore it is true to say that the Joint Committee came into existence as a direct result of the consideration of broadcasting the proceedings of Parliament, although its terms of reference were widened to include other forms of reporting Parliamentary proceedings. Therefore my noble friend Lord Ferrier is fully justified in having directed our attention specifically to the relevance of these two Reports to the televising and radio broadcasting of our proceedings.
My Lords, I am a layman without legal qualifications and I am very conscious of the fact that I am speaking about complicated legal issues. However, put briefly and in a layman's words, the conclusions reached by the Joint Committee were that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. are already accorded qualified privilege under Section 3 of the Parliamentary Papers Act of 1840, as amended, and in this respect they are treated in exactly the same way as the Press, and this is as
112
it should be. Section 3, as amended, provides that in any civil or criminal proceedings for printing, including broadcasting, any extract from Parliamentary Reports, Papers, Votes and Proceedings it is sufficient for the defence to prove that such extract was published bona fide and without malice. The Committee concluded that this was sufficient protection for the broadcasting authorities, as it had always been for the Press. However, they went slightly further in suggesting that the 1840 Act should be amended to confer absolute privilege in respect of the broadcasting of Parliamentary proceedings by any broadcasting unit set up by this or the other House. This was in response to a suggestion by the Select Committee on the broadcasting of proceedings of the House of Commons, that the task of providing a full television and sound feed should be in the hands of a special unit to be known as the House of Commons Broadcasting Unit. As your Lordships are aware, the other place are currently engaged in a study of the pros and cons of televising their proceedings and it would be premature to take this matter any further at the moment.
The Joint Committee also considered matters of privilege concerning all other forms of reporting Parliamentary proceedings and made a number of recommendations. However, these were in a sense subsidiary to the question of broadcasting the proceedings of Parliament. The Committee themselves realised that it would be premature to start drafting a Bill until decisions had been taken in respect of broadcasting.
I listened with great interest to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and I am grateful to him for so kindly having given me notice of the matter that he intended to raise. The Joint Committee themselves draw attention to the haphazard manner in which printing orders are accorded to some Act papers and not to others, and recommend that rules should be prescribed to regulate this matter. The noble Lord went on to draw attention to the absurdity of laying Act papers in dummy, and of course on the face of it this is an absurd practice. As he said, it occurs because of the wish of those concerned to publish when Parliament is not sitting, most often during the Summer Recess,

113
and at the same time to obtain for them absolute privilege under the 1840 Act by having them published by order or under the authority of the House. The only alternative that occurred to me would be for printing orders to be made in advance of publication, but this is a matter for the other place. I noticed that when he spoke he made another suggestion, and I will certainly see that it is carefully considered. I know that he is a good Liberal and may think it a very conservative argument, but these papers have been laid in dummy for the last 70 years without causing any undue difficulty.
I do not think there is very much more I can usefully say. We need to await the outcome of the other place's consideration of televising their proceedings before it is really worth while taking action on these Reports. Nevertheless, their existence will help very significantly if and when a time comes when some form of television or sound broadcasting of the proceedings of Parliament is permitted, and my noble friend, I am sure, has done the House a service in drawing attention to them.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, at this late hour it remains for me to thank noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting little debate, which has fulfilled all I hoped of it although it did not start quite as early in the day as I had expected. I do not want to hold up the noble Lord, Lord Henley, any further. I am glad to think that the debate has been worth while, and we have, by discussing this matter, discharged the task laid on both Houses in the paragraph in the Report which I quoted. I am not altogether sure that what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said covers the whole ground, because, whatever the position may be in regard to what the Committee thought, the doubt in my mind is that the broadcasters may not be satisfied that that is sufficient to let them broadcast if, when the time comes, this task is laid upon them. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn

ADMINISTRATION OF NATIONAL PARKS
8.12 p.m.
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government: On what grounds they have rejected the recommendation of Sir Jack Longland that there should be a special authority for each national park with the sole responsibility for administering the park, employing its own staff for the purpose and meeting its expenses by precept. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper which is about the control of national parks. It may be that I should have posed my Question so as to ask why the Government have indicated, at least informally, that they would be unwilling to accept Sir Jack Longland's recommendations. It may be that in fact they have not rejected all the formidable arguments he has put forward.
The recommendations, which broadly speaking are set out in my Question on the Order Paper, were made on behalf of the Countryside Commission und submitted by them in response to the Government's White Paper on The Future of Local Government. They set forth what is I think the classic position which was originally proposed by Sir Arthur Hobhouse in 1947, that the national park planning boards should be autonomous. The recommendation, which, as I say, followed that classical position, was in line with what exists in the case of the Peak Park Planning Board to-day and has been such a success. It is also in line with most of the views that have been expressed up to now by people who are most concerned with national parks. It was in line with what Redcliffe-Maud said in 1969, and it was also in line with what the last Government said in their White Paper in 1970. And, of course, it is also in line with what all the national societies concerned with the environment have been saying all along But it has not been in line with county council opinion, which did not like what it considered derogation from counry councils' powers. Unfortunately, the view of the county councils has been the one that has prevailed, and after the Peak Park Board was set up originally, which was modified Hobhouse, a system was devised

115
for the other parks which no one now thinks was a very good one, and which I think everybody would like to see changed.
When Sir Jack Longland put up his proposal on behalf of the Countryside Commission it came to be believed that it would not be acceptable to the Government; and, of course, as I have said, it had never been acceptable in county council circles, and the classical position had always been one that they regarded with suspicion. I think they felt that autonomous bodies of this kind would make for what Mr.Hicks, who is a county councillor of the Cumberland County Council. calls "a hole in the heart of local government". Meanwhile, the County Councils Association came up with its own proposals, which I think were possibly an improvement in some respects on what had gone before, but which were still not acceptable to the Countryside Commission.
The two sides, therefore, the Countryside Commission and the County Councils Association, got together and hammered out an agreement which it was said was satisfactory to both bodies. This agreement makes the future national park authority a main committee of the county council with full delegated powers. It invests the park planning officer with, it is suggested, a statutorily defined position, and it also requires that there should be a national park plan which should be drawn up within three years. That plan would be a local plan within the development plan system which would be drawn up in consultation with the Countryside Commission, and not, of course, infringing the structure plan, though the structure plan has in any case to go before the Countryside Commission for their comments. Unless the fullest powers are delegated to this committee, it will merely repeat the shortcomings of the present administrative arrangements—that is, outside the park planning board and the Lake District—and many people are very worried that this may well be so.
First of all, can these powers, the powers that are asked for in this compromise agreement, really be fully delegated from the county council to its committee? Everything of importance, as your Lordships know, costs money, and
116
control immediately then passes back from the committee, however important a committee it is, to the county council. Secondly, if one takes an example from highways, will this committee be itself a highway authority? If not, it makes a nonsense of the whole thing, because at once matters connected with highways will be taken away from this committee and go back again to the council. Lastly, when Private Bills come up, who is to oppose them? Will it be this committee or will the responsibility again go back to the county council itself It seems to me that any kind of autonomy is going to be extremely limited.
I want to know whether Her Majesty's Government can give me specific assurances that these powers, which are now agreed between the County Councils Association and the Countryside Commission, will mean the full delegation of planning and management powers, including all development control powers, so long as they are not contrary to the overall development plan. Will they be fully delegated? Can they be fully delegated? Can I be assured also that the appointment of a park planning officer will be a statutory requirement? I think this is one of the suggestions that have been put forward in the agreement. But if the park planning officer is not statutorily defined as to his duties and exactly what he can do, one suspects that he may fall back into the position of being some other official of the county council in his spare time. If this agreement between the County Councils Association and the Countryside Commission is in any way watered down, or if in any way it does not in fact really mean what one hopes it means, then we shall be going back to where we were, and in fact where we are, with national parks being run by an unimportant and uninfluential sub-committee of the local authority. It is this fear which prompts many people who care for national parks to think that Sir Jack Longland's recommendation was the right one. I want to know, before I feel satisfied that this compromise agreement was a good one, that the Government can give me an answer which will show me that these delegated powers are in fact going to be delegated, that they can be delegated, and that the position will be defined by Statute so that there is no possibility of these powers being whittled away by either side in this compromise.
8.21 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I think the whole House is very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for asking this Question. It certainly does need asking. I am going to go further than he has; I am not going to be satisfied even if the Government can satisfy the House that these powers are going to be delegated. I am going to ask the Government to think again and to adopt the Longland proposals. I am going to argue that it was a mistake to reject them.
It is extremely difficult to remember what is the present administration of the national parks; it is hideously complicated. There are ten. Four of them lie in more than one county; namely, Brecon Beacons, Exmoor, Snowdonia, and the Yorkshire Dales. Those four are administered by separate planning committees of each of the county councils concerned; that is to say, there is one national park which is not administered by one committee but by two or three committees, each of which is a subsidiary committee of a county council. Above these groups of committees is situated a powerless advisory committee, which does not help much. Four more of the national parks lie wholly within a single county. They are Dartmoor, Northumberland, the North Yorkshire moors, and the Pembrokeshire coast, and they are administered by a committee of that single county wherein they lie. Two of them, on the other hand—and these are the two which interest anybody who knows anything about this matter—have proper, full-fledged planning authorities of their own which are independent of the county councils. They are the Peak National Park and the Lake District National Park. On all these planning authorities—whether they are committees of several councils working together or single committees of one council, or proper independent planning authorities—two-thirds of the members are appointed by the county councils concerned and the other one-third by the central Government. There is no proposal to change that situation, I am glad to see.
We now come to the heart of the matter, that it is only the two successful ones, the Peak and the Lake District, which have financial independence. It
118
is only they who are allowed, under the control of central Government of course, to precept on the county rate to secure the funds they want in accordance with their own decisions. It is noticeable also that the Peak National Park has virtually untrammelled powers to do this, whereas the Lake District National Park may precept only within narrowly circumscribed limits. Of all the national park committees, only one, the Peak, employs its own full-time staff. The others are staffed, as and when needed, by secondment of part-time county officials, and sometimes from two or three counties simultaneously.
It is not as though this were a new matter. The national parks were set up in 1949, and at that time the intention of Parliament was that they should be administered by joint boards; that is, by single, fully-fledged planning authorities, as the Peak National Park alone now is administered. The Act of 1949 said that they should be administered in this way by a single board unless the Minister was satisfied that, by reason of any special circumstances, it was expedient for securing the efficient administration of the park that another arrangement should be made. Other arrangements were made with a vengeance, my Lords! This section was invoked in the case of Snowdonia, the Brecon Beacons, Exmoor, and the Yorkshire Dales, in order to have joint advisory committees, instead of joint planning boards with proper statutory planning powers; and no special circumstances have ever been shown to Parliament why this should be done. I think there might even be a case for arguing that the Act has been quite simply ignored by successive Governments.
The situation went wrong immediately after 1949, and it is still wrong. Ever since then the present system of administering the parks (the muddle of the three different systems which apply), has been under consistent fire from the Countryside Commission, formerly the National Parks Commission. It has been under fire from all the national amenity societies and their local branches concerned; and that is still the situation. It is still under fire by those who work in this field and who, rightly or wrongly, believe that they are charged with obtaining the best arrangement they can get from the Government.

119
Several major examinations have been made. Not to go too far back, let us start with the Royal Commission on Local Government in 1969, which reported to the Government of which I was a member, the Redcliffe-Maud Report. The Redcliffe-Maud Report said that for each national park there should be a special authority with the sole responsibility for administering the park and employing its own staff for the purpose. The authority for a national park should meet its expenditure by precepting on the main authorities with territories inside the park. This recommendation was accepted by the last Government, so that in their White Paper of February, 1970, The Reform of Local Government in England, they said that it was here only (and by "here only" the White Paper meant in the national parks) that, because of the unique character of the task, the Royal Commission had recommended ad hoc authorities, which one could present as making a hole in the heart of local government, although I do not think that this is a fair way to put it.
Now we have the recent events. The last full-scale analysis of the matter was the Longland Report. Sir Jack Longland went into it in a wealth of detail which I do not think has been equalled by any of the inquiries since the original one in the 1940s. It has not been equalled in the Government's statement of their reasons for refusing the Longland proposals. He said that there should be exactly what Parliament originally intended, exactly what Radcliffe-Maud proposed, and exactly what the last Government intended—single planning authorities, with one for each national park, with power to precept. The Government would not have it, and I am sorry to say that the Countryside Commission, who of course are the statutory advisers of the Government, accepted the Government's refusal of this proposal and came to an agreement with the County Councils Association, who naturally want things to stay roughly as they are on the compromise which the Government have provisionally—though it is not yet before Parliament—accepted.
Let us look for a moment at this compromise. It is lengthy and carefully thought out. It is a County Councils Association document which bears the
120
stamp of county council thinking at every level—and I have nothing against that. The county councils should put their own case, and they have done so; but I submit to the House that the Government should not accept it. I would draw attention to one clause only in this compromise document; that is the appendix on "National Park Administration" at B2 where it says:
"The county councils should delegate to the National Park Committee"—
that is the low-level national park committee that they want—
"in respect of the whole area of the Park full powers of decision within agreed estimates"—
that is to say, the county council keeps an absolute hand on the purse strings—
"with the exceptions of the management powers under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the Countryside Act 1968"—
These the county councils wish to keep themselves in main council, even if there are three of them in the national park, and here comes the point—
"and such other management functions as the councils may deem appropiate."
This means that the county councils should delegate only what they feel like delegating, and that in each place it should be entirely according to the decision—I will not say the whim—of the local county council, or county councils, what powers the National Parks Board has. This will not do. These are national parks. To a great extent they have been county council parks ever since they were set up. While the present proposals do not increase the powers of the county councils, and do not make the present situation worse—I should be the first to admit that; indeed, in certain small respects they make it better—with the Bill to reform local government we are missing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to return these parks to the status that Parliament originally intended, of truly national parks each having its own real planning authority with its own real powers and its own real finance.
It is only necessary to look at the record of the parks which have been on the ground now for twenty years to see the force of this. The one which has done best in all respects, by all standards that one can measure, is the Peak District National Park. That is the only one which has a single proper planning

121
authority with its own financial powers. Everything which has been done to the good in any national park was done first in the Peak National Park. They have spent far more on it than has been spent on any other national park. They are streets ahead, and have spent about twice as much as the next. The Lake District National Park comes along in an honourable second place, as one would expect, because it is autonomous, with its own planning powers and its own finance, though its financial autonomy is not so great. The rest, the ones that are mere appendages of county councils, lag far behind by any index one can conceive.
It is sometimes said, "Ah, but the parks which are in the multiple control of several county councils happen to be under the control of councils which are much weaker in rateable value than the Peak District National Park, which has the wealth of the industrial North Midlands and the Manchester conurbation on its doorstep, and can call on that." That is not a valid argument, because the Yorkshire Moors National Park is certainly in a wealthy local authority district and has plenty of industrial rateable value at its back. They have not found it possible to spend the money they should have spent in that national park, in spite of their wealth.
Again, it is sometimes said that the national parks differ from each other very much in the extent to which they are under pressure from public use, and that expenditure goes with pressure from public use. You need it to build car parks, to hide them, to build information centres, to regulate public use, to get access agreements and so on. One argument goes that the ones who have spent less tend not to spend much because they are far away from centres of population and there is no pressure on them. That was true until recently, and up to now that has been a tenable argument, but I do not think it is true any longer, because with the development and completion of the motorway systems there are going to be 19,000,000 people within a three-hour drive of their nearest national park. Even Exmoor, which hitherto has been about the most remote, except possibly for the Pembrokeshire coast one, is going to have a population
122
of many millions. All the Midlands conurbation is going to be able to drive for the day to Exmoor. Therefore, the pressure is going to be roughly equal on all the national parks, and soon that argument will not hold.
In conclusion, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will be able to tell us to-day that the Government are still openminded on this matter. There is not one national amenity society—there are eight in number and it would be a string of initials to name them—which does not vigorously attack the compromise now backed by the Government. Together, they are acting to promote a public campaign. There is to be a National Parks Day the week after next, with simultaneous meetings in I do not know how many cities. All voluntary opinion is dead against this compromise. The Countryside Commission themselves were dead against it, until the Government told them that they would not accept their point of view. Sir Jock Long-land, who, I repeat, has carried out the fullest and most fundamental examination of it in this age, is dead against it. I do not know anybody who is for it, except the Government and the County Councils Association.
I shall not speculate on the Government's motives, but it is common knowledge that they are not doing what the county councils want in another sphere. They are proposing to pass planning powers from the county councils downwards to district councils. In my view, this is very wrong; it should not be done. The planning powers should stay where they are, with the top-tier authorities. On this our whole environment depends. The national park powers should stay higher still in national park boards which are independent of and, in a sense, above the county councils. The Government have slipped downwards in their delegation of powers. I hope it is not too late for them to winch the whole thing upwards again, to keep normal planning powers with the top-tier planning authorities, the county councils and the conurbation authorities, as they should be, and to give national park powers to the centres of autonomous power that Parliament wanted to have them and that all informed opinion still wants to have them.
8.36 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, it is with very considerable diffidence that I rise to speak on this Question this evening, not only because of the lateness of the hour but because I feel that I come to it as a "townee" treading on the hallowed ground of a national park. I really do so because, like many people in local government, I am very concerned at the continual disappearance of functions and powers from local government to ad hoc boards. If I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I would say that people in major cities, as well as those in county councils, are concerned about this disappearance. I speak now for the Association of Municipal Corporations, who have expressed general support for the views of the County Councils Association.
I believe that Her Majesty's Government are right in not accepting the Report of Sir Jack Longland and in saying, both in the White Paper on Local Government Reform and in the Local Government Bill, that the planning of national parks should remain with local government. Indeed, I believe that the Government have indicated general support for the joint proposal of the County Councils Association and the Countryside Commission, There are many reasons why I support the Government in this view. Both major Parties are committed to the reform of local government, and the whole emphasis of the present Bill, and I believe the intention of those who support reform, is that local government must have a responsible and effective job to do. Local government administration must be intelligible to the public whom it is designed to serve and responsive to public need. Already, local government has lost to outside boards the police in 1966; it will lose the local authority health services in 1975; there are the proposed water boards and the passenger transport authorities; and now there is the proposal that national parks should be administered by ad hoc boards.
There are many weaknesses in ad hoc boards such as the one that is proposed, for they create divided responsibility within one geographical area. It is often difficult for the public to find out who are the members of such a board. Indeed, we do not know how the Government nominees are to be appointed, nor do we
124
know to whom a board will be answerable; and, after all, a board would have powers to precept. To the public it means another separate board with separate powers. The local government principle that committees are answerable to the county council or to the city council, which in turn is answerable to the electorate, is broken.
I recognise, on reading the Report of the Countryside Commission, that there are many criticisms of the administration of national parks over the last twenty years, but under the Local Government Bill the new counties will be both larger and different in composition. They will include members from the towns within their areas, as well as the country, and therefore their committees could well have members of the "park users" as well as of the "park providers". Furthermore, these committees will have power to co-opt and could, if they so wished, co-opt members from the towns outside their counties. I believe that once the users of the parks became members of the committees, those committees could be more effective and responsive to the needs of the public. Some of the difficulties have been indicated in the Report of the Countryside Commission in paragraph 5.22, page 43.
If the proposal for ad hoc boards was agreed to, then in two new counties, Gwynedd and Cumbria, the planning for a large proportion of the geographical area of the county would be outside county administration. In all counties with national parks planning functions would be divided: national parks outside county planning committees; country parks under county planning committees. This does not seem to be a very sensible administrative arrangement. Again, it is divided responsibility, and is certainly unintelligible to the public; and the committee cannot take into account the planning needs of the county as a whole. I accept that there are many great advantages in having the appointment of a planning officer with specific responsibility for each national park, but this proposal seems to me to be completely compatible with a planning committee under the county council.
In conclusion, I should like to say just two things about precepts. I recognise that it is a long-established practice that one local authority precepts on another,

125
but there are disadvantages to this system, especially when an ad hoc board has power to precept on someone else. It can well be argued that this is a completely undemocratic system, for it is, of course, taxation without representation, and there is no public democratic accountability, as in a county council or a city council. The only accountability is by audit, and there are many people who feel that this is not really the right way to raise taxation.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness would recognise that the National Parks Planning Board as proposed by Sir Jack Longland would consist of a majority of persons nominated by the county councils, and that in their powers to precept they would be analogous to those very water boards and river authorities the disappearance of which the noble Baroness was lamenting a moment ago.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, very much for that. I entirely accept what he says, but I do not think that it invalidates my argument. The point is that even if two-thirds of the members are nominated by the counties and one-third by the Minister, the board itself is not answerable to the public, as at a county council meeting or anything like that. It has the power to raise money, but the members of the board are not themselves directly subject to election and answerable in the sense that they would be if they were members of a planning committee. I accept that my argument applies just as much to water boards and all sorts of other organisations which I feel I must not enlarge on because they are not really to the point in this particular discussion.
The second point I wanted to make about precepts will, I am afraid, disturb noble Lords even more, but it is something of concern to local government. Over the last five years or so most local authorities have undergone tremendous internal management reorganisation. There have been many reasons for these reforms; and most major local authorities have created some kind of policy finance committee, differing in name in each authority. One of the purposes of this committee is to try to resolve the priorities within the authority. Financial priorities are some of the most difficult
126
matters to resolve, and, of course, unless one has some kind of a committee system for doing it, it is very difficult to achieve a sensible decision at all. To have an ad hoc board from outside with power to precept means immediately, as Lord Kennet has quite rightly said, that someone from outside is going to get money regardless of any other priorities of the county, even if the total amount of precept is limited, as it is in many cases. In this way the whole structure of the internal reforms of local government can be distorted because some outside authority has this power of taxation.
In conclusion, my Lords, I believe that one of the most compelling reasons for local government reform is the need to improve planning in this complex society in which we live. But to take an important service and planning function away from local government at the moment when a Bill is being considered seems not only to undermine one of the basic reasons for reform but to undermine those who believe that, despite all its failings, representative democracy is still the best form of government at local and national levels.
8.45 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Henley has raised this subject to-night because in ally event it is time, that we reviewed the workings of the 1949 Act, and it is extra important that we should do it now in the light of local government changes ahead of us such as have been referred to by my noble friend. I would submit that whatever decisions we take this year, or which the Government take this year and we approve, are likely to stand for a long time, and that if we make the wrong decisions it is not just going to call a halt to progress within the national parks; it could mean doing them irretrievable damage.
I am not so convinced as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that we should accept Longland in toto or nearly so, but I am convinced of several things—just as convinced as my noble friend is of certain other things. The first is that we must find a way—and here I think she will agree with me—to give reasonable powers and independence to national parks authorities, maybe going beyond planning powers and such as would enable them to command the respect not just

127
of Parliament, the Department of the Environment and visitors to the park, but also of the local inhabitants and of the county councils or new main authorities, whatever their name may be; and that is not happening now. One reason is that there is no proper interlocking, and I would suggest that one simple reason why the present planning boards have not carried the weight they should have done is that they have tended to draw volunteers from the county councils in their area when surely the county councils should have made a point of sending a proportion of very responsible councillors to serve on these boards, such as the chairman or vice-chairman of their planning committee—in fact, members who really share responsibility for county council policy. Then each party would know the policy and the thinking of the other, which I do not think to date has always been the case.
I am equally convinced from experience that it would be a very grave error to put responsibility for planning in national parks in the hands of any special committee of a county council, such as that for which the County Councils Association has been pressing. For reasons of geography, as has been mentioned, this seems an attractive outcome where a park such as the Lake District National Park falls inside one local authority area. It seems absurd that the authority responsible for the centre should be separate from the authority responsible for the edge. Yet it would not serve the purpose to delegate powers for planning in the centre to a committee of the main local authority. Some other solution must be sought.
My Lords, I do not want to appear parochial, talking too much about one area, but I do know intimately one of the two areas which now have planning boards, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, knows it, too. I have represented Westmorland in another place; I live in Cumberland, but just outside the national park, and I think that in this debate, late though it is, experience is valuable. Further, I was a member of the Select Committee of another place which considered the 1949 Act. One thing of which I am quite certain is that the principal difficulty under the present arrangements has arisen from the division of
128
responsibility between the authority responsible for highways and the authority responsible for planning. Within the Lake District the situation is absurd. The three county highway authorities have each been responsible for highways in their area of the park; there has been one planning authority which is the planning board but served by the three planning officers of the three counties, each primarily responsible for the detail of planning in the area of his own county. One need say no more beyond drawing attention to the mammoth public inquiry which is taking place in Penrith, now entering its fourth week and nowhere near the end. It is no more and no less than civil war between the highways and the planning authorities—both parts of the public sector. This should never be allowed to happen again.
My Lords, perhaps I might say just this to illustrate the difficulties that we are in—and this situation is not as easy as those who try to simplify the problem would make out. Of the three counties concerned with the Lake District National Park, I should like to refer quite briefly to the attitude of two of them—each is entirely different—because it throws light on the problem. Westmorland, the smaller county, sees advantage in a separate board. A large proportion of its leading citizens live in the park. There is a tradition in the county of small-scale, high-standard industry both in and out of the national parks, and there is great reliance on the tourist industry. It is all very like Switzerland. Cumberland, which is the larger county with a more urban electorate, has fewer of its (shall I say?) county establishment figures living in the park; and I speak in particular of the county councillors. It has a county council with a reputation with its smaller neighbours of empire building. Its chairman is a very able man, a personal friend of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and of mine; and I hope he will not mind my saying that he has never shown any special feeling for the national park. He is a leader in the County Councils Association of the policy to bring planning in the national parks under the county councils. Further, the county council, with all its influence, so far as I can see, has never tried to check the opinion getting around that the Lake District Planning Board is out of

129
touch, undemocratic and an obstacle in the way of an economic revival of the West Cumberland industrial belt. On the other side, the Lake District Planning Board has been slow in combating these views and slow in themselves to explain their statutory duties to the people and to make much closer contact with local people, which I believe it would have been possible for them to do. That is not really a very happy state.
At the time of the debates on the 1949 Act I was apprehensive about the division of responsibility and I thought we might see too negative, too restrictive, a policy developing in the national parks. I made speeches to that effect and, I think, distressed the noble Lord, Lord Strang, who was then Chairman of the National Parks Commission. But I now admit that I was largely mistaken and I have come to the firm conclusion—and I am not alone in this—that if planning powers in the Lake District (and no doubt it applies equally to other districts) were returned to the county council, or to the successors to the county councils, there would soon be no national parks as we now know them. I am glad to see noble Lords nodding in assent. The interest is not there. "By their deeds shall ye know them." Where a conflict arises between the interests of a national park as laid down by Parliament and the supposed economic interests of other areas, particularly the urban areas of an authority outside the national park, the votes in support of the latter are more likely to win every time. This is not being critical of individual councillors or individual councils. The pressures that they would be under would be difficult to resist and by giving way on many occasions it would not be long before the erosion which resulted would do irreparable damage.
Noble Lords would do well to remember the words of the late Lord Birkett in this House when speaking in the debate about 17 years ago on the threats to Ullswater and Windermere from the Manchester Corporation. He then described the Lake District as "so small, so beautiful and so vulnerable". His words apply equally to many other areas in this land.
8.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, I cannot entirely share the views expressed
130
by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, although I recognise the force of the arguments that he has made. I speak as a member of the North York Moors National Park Planning Committee. I started as an elected member a county councillor, for some time; but more recently I have been a Minister's nominee. The North York Moors is not quite as rich as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, described it to us. I think he was referring to the Yorkshire Dales.
LORD KENNET: Yes, my Lords, I was.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: We are a single county park run by a committee of the county council in a proportion of two-thirds elected councillors and one-third Minister's nominees. There a certain amount of local feeling against the whole idea of a national park and for this reason I think that close connection with a county council is valuable. If we had a different planning officer for the national park, as proposed by Sir Jack Longland, and he was a different man from the planning officer for the rest of the North Riding, it might lead to difficulties. I cannot think of an occasion when we wanted to spend some money—at least, not to my knowledge—when we have been vetoed by the county council. But I feel that we ought to be playing a more positive role than we are.
I think that the composition of the committee has something to do with this. I feel that our committee could be strengthened. We do not have an active hill farmer on the Committee. By an active hill farmer, I am thinking of somebody who not only has to wrest a living from the hills, but who can also take the wider view and look at some of the problems connected with other land users in the park. I am thinking of forestry, recreation and tourism. Nor have we an active hill farmer's wife on our committee. This is a lack, too, in the sense that the people closest to the problems of life in the hills are perhaps the wives. Nor have we an active forester on our committee. If we are going to make any impression in the future on the drift away from the hills, forestry must play an increasingly important part. The Ministry of Agriculture, of course, plays a large part in the hills through the grants it gives to the hill farmers. I

131
wonder whether our committee would not be strengthened if we had a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture on it.
Then there were some useful grants which the late-lamented Northern Pennines Rural Development Board was able to give to farmers and foresters who wanted to convert accommodation for the benefit of tourists and for various other purposes. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, almost a year ago, suggested that these grants might equally well be administered by the Tourist Board. This suggestion was well received at the time by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, speaking on behalf of the Government. I wonder what has happened to those grants. Furthermore, the rural development board was able to give useful grants toward rural bus services, enabling them to make up their income to a figure at which the county council could come in and support them. I should like to know, too, what has happened to that power.
Finally, I believe that one of the most valuable things that the rural development board did was to act as a forum for public discussion of the issues involved in living in the hills. Now that we have no rural development board, I think that this is something which the national park committee ought to do.
9.0 p.m.
LORD VERNON: My Lords, I put my name down to speak, but due to some mishap it did not find its way on to the list. I share the anxieties expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Henley, Lord Kennet and Lord Inglewood, on this matter. What strikes one with most force when reading through Sir Jack Longland's Report is the extraordinary unanimity with which everybody who has looked at this problem—from the Hobhouse Committee and John Dewar in the 1940s, down to Sir Jack Longland himself, and the Royal Commission more recently—have agreed that all national parks can be satisfactorily run only by independent boards with their own planning officers, a state of affairs which at present exists only in the Peak Park. Surely "the proof of the pudding is in the eating": the Peak Park is by universal consent streets ahead of any other park in its success. This must weigh very heavily.
132
Looking ahead to the end of the century, only 25 years or so, I believe it is inevitable that national parks will become much more national in character. This was a point partially made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, when he talked about the motorways spreading out to all corners of the Island. With a 20 per cent. increase in our population, an apparently endless expansion of the economy and 50.000 acres of agricultural land being lost every year to industry and urban development, the pressures on the countryside will be getting greater all the time. As the concrete gradually takes over, the national parks will begin to stand out as the only green oases in an otherwise hideous urban development. This surely makes it all the more important that the parks should be regarded as national rather than local assets; and if they are to be regarded as national assets, they must not be administered by local authorities but by authorities specifically enjoined to preserve them against non-amenity interests.
I do not think the issue could be better stated than it is in paragraph 3.47 of Sir Jack's report, quoting Mr. Harold Macmillan in 1952:
"While the county councils have a general duty to do what they can to keep the balance between industrial needs and the development of material resources, on the one hand, and amenity interests, on the other, in those areas which are designated as national parks, amenity and access are to be given an overriding position. That really is the difference. It is just that which distinguishes the national parks from the general functions of county councils over the rest of the country."
My noble friend Lady Young talked about the importance of retaining the powers of the local authorities; but, of course, we are talking about the national parks, and are looking at what is a national park interest here. Surely what is in the interest of the national park must come first. It is imperative that these parks should have their own effective administrative offices and director and chief executive, responsible to the whole park as one environmental entity, and not having a bias to one or more constituent counties. Any attempt to weaken the park authority's own planning control where that exists would, I think, be disastrous. The need for uniform standards is obvious.

133
In conclusion, my Lords, may I just say that I happen to live on the edge of the Peak National Park, and I have seen something at first hand of the excellent work which they do, and for which they have been commended on all sides. One cannot fail to be impressed not only by their achievement, but also by the devotion and the tremendous enthusiasm of all the independent planning staff whom they employ. Would it not be better for the Secretary of State to build the future structure of the national parks on this outstanding success story rather than to open the door once again to the much slower, more cumbrous and less effective administration by one or more local authorities?
9.4 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I must apologise for not having put my name on the list of speakers; quite honestly, I did not think there would be anything left for me to say. However, there is one point on which I should like to touch. I agree wholeheartedly with the views expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Kennet, and by my noble friends on these Benches, for the reason that in the national parks there are certain things which can only be dealt with by those who are experts in particular subjects: for instance, the preservation of woodlands, of wild life and so on. Those matters of course could not be dealt with by a county council. Furthermore, one must remember that there are always conflicting pressures, like roadbuilding and so on, which naturally all have to be considered. A county council would not have any particular pressure one way or the other, but a committee of a national park would naturally be out to defend its own particular interests and would have the expertise with which to do so. I think that when one comes to sum them up, those are strong reasons why national parks should be individual organisations and not under the legislation of the county council.
9.7 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to intervene before the Minister replies. It had not been my intention to intervene in this debate, but there are one or two things that I should like to say. First, I wish to make what
134
may be a rather peculiar request to the noble Lord who is going to answer this Question, and that is that he should not give us an answer. I mean by that that I am anxious lest the Government should commit themselves to a rigid position on this business at this early stage. We are going to be arguing about this question as the Local Government Bill passes through its stages in this House and in the other place, and I am particularly anxious that the Government should not take up a firm and unalterable position at this stage in the debate.
May I say that I am a member of the Dartmoor National Park Committee. I have not the advantage, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, has, of having any democratic connections. I am a purely appointed person and have never had any democratic credentials, but I have had about ten years' experience of serving on the Dartmoor National Park Committee. The significance of that in this debate is that the Dartmoor Park Committee is the prototype being recommended under the Government's proposals for all future national parks, with of course the exclusion of the Peak and the Lake Districts. It appears to me that the weakness of this kind of park committee is that it is wholly subordinate, and indeed the creature of the county council. Theoretically, of course, park committees of this kind are, in a planning sense, autonomous bodies. But that is really an illusion, because when you come down to all matters of importance it is the county council which has the last say.
If I may give just three illustrations of what I am trying to say, I have to-day come up from a meeting of the Dartmoor National Park Committee. We had before us the consideration of an attempt to stop up a bridleway so as to prevent vehicles from using it. We were considering whether we might be able to promote an Order under an Act concerning traffic regulation and ask the Minister to confirm the Order that this bridleway should not he used by vehicles. Now it appears that if we should attempt to promote such a law we should need to go not directly to the Minister but first of all to the highway committee—because the park committee are not the highway authority, and therefore we have to go cap in hand to the highway

135
committee and ask them to suggest an Order to the Minister. Therefore we are entirely dependent upon the county council, as such.
May I give another illustration of the way in which we are dependent on the county council, the local authority? Some time ago the Dartmoor Park Committee attempted to oppose, and did indeed oppose, the proposal to establish a reservoir on Dartmoor at Swincombe. We were resolutely opposed to this idea, but as a park committee we were not entitled to appear before this House or the other House to oppose a Private Bill promoted by Plymouth. We had to go to the county council and say, "We want to oppose it but you are the only people who can, and you are the people who have to put up the money". Our Park Committee was entirely dependent upon the decision of the Devon County Council as to whether or not the Swincombe proposal by Plymouth was going to be opposed. Therefore on any financial question, whenever money is involved, park committees are wholly dependent upon the decision of the local planning authority, in fact the county council.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I have sympathy with his argument, but is it not a reasonable proposition that the building of a reservoir in the park should be considered in its broader social implications, and that the county council might be the appropriate authority so to do?
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I do not think that I would dissent from that proposition at all. But the point I am trying to make is that when you are considering this proposition as to whether the park committee ought to be allowed to oppose a proposal of that kind, why should they be thwarted, as they may be, by the local authority when they are supposed to represent not only the local interest but also the national interest? If I may address these remarks to the noble Baroness, she was saying that it is right and democratic that the final decision ought to rest with the local people. I do not dissent for one moment from the suggestion that local people ought to be concerned with the matter. They are concerned and involved with
136
the matter because on our Park Committee we have twelve representatives of the local authority and only six appointed people. What I object to is that the final decision in these matters should rest entirely with the local authority when what we are talking about is national parks, and that the national interests should be submerged in the decisions of the local people.
I am not sure that this intervention is of particular use, but may I conclude as I began by asking the Minister when he replies not to take up too rigid a position about this subject, because there are a great number of people, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was saying just now—in fact every amenity society in the country—who believe the Government, in the provisional decisions at which they have arrived, have made a serious error. I hope that this matter is going to remain one which is open to debate.
9.16 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, may I hasten to say that all interventions in this debate have been of the greatest value. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for raising this important but complex issue. I agree with the noble Lord who made the point that it is unavoidably complex. However, I should first of all like to congratulate, to thank and to encourage all those—and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is certainly among them—who have done so much to stimulate public interest in national parks in recent months and to bring so many minds to bear upon them. I wish them well in the rallies they propose to hold up and down the country later this month.
As some of your Lordships will know, I am currently Chairman of a Committee set up to review the National Parks. I have the great benefit of two Countryside Commissioners, one of whom is Sir Jack Longland, on my Committee. Having taken a lot of written evidence, we have begun a series of two to three day visits to each of the ten parks in England and Wales where, among other things we hold a series of public meetings. To judge from these meetings there is no lack of interest in the future of the

137
parks—not so much interest in the administration, which is what we are concerned with now, as in all the different manners in which the reconciliation of the potentially conflicting interests that need to be accommodated in the parks can be achieved. We are learning much that I hope will be of valuable application when the new authorities start work in two years' time.
By way of another preliminary, I should just like to correct quite a serious error in the leaflet produced for the Campaign for National Parks. This says that the Countryside Commission were told that Sir Jack Longland's proposals for the administration reform of the parks were unacceptable. That is not so. The Chairman of the Countryside Commission has refuted allegations that my right honourable friend expressed such a view or sought to persuade the Corn-mission to reach agreement with the County Councils Association. Mr. Cripps wrote to my right honourable friend thus on November 15, just before the Second Reading of the Local Government Reform Bill in the other place:
"I see that it is being alleged in reports of speeches and in letters to the Press that you sought to persuade the Countryside Commission to reach agreement with the County Councils Association on proposals for the future administration of national parks. This is, of course, quite contrary to the facts. At no time did you or any member of the Government request or suggest that we should have discussions with the County Councils Association on this matter."
I wanted to get that corrected and on the record.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, could the noble Lord be so helpful as to tell the House in what terms the Countryside Commission forwarded Sir Jack Long-land's recommendations to the Government and with what comment? Did they endorse them, or did they say, "Here is an interesting idea held by one of our members"?
LORD SANDFORD: I cannot recall the exact words, but I can look them up and let the noble Lord know. I was not dealing with that point: I was dealing with the allegation that we had expressed those views, or given the Countryside Commission those directions, which we had not done.
LORD KENNET: I fully understood that the noble Lord was clarifying the
138
situation about why the Countryside Commission appeared to change its mind. In order fully to understand this, one would need to know two things: first, what the Countryside Commission said about the Longland Report. Did it endorse it or did it send it in a neutral frame of mind? Assuming the former to have been the case, that it endorsed the Report, what caused the Countryside Commission to change its mind?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that is for the Countryside Commission to say, not for me, but I will let the noble Lord know the terms in which the Report was forwarded. I am afraid I cannot do that off the cuff.
LORD KENNET: The noble Lord is prepared to quote the Countryside Commission on the latter point. He could have said that it is for the Countryside Commission to say what they had said about that. But no, he told the House what they said. I hope he will tell the House what the Countryside Commission said about the former point, too.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I cannot recall it and I have no note of the terms in which they sent us Sir Jack Longland's Report. They are not on record, so far as I know, as to what persuaded them to change, or as a result of what processes they charged, their minds. I cannot give the noble Lord any assurance about that because I have nothing I can turn up.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Is it a fact that there was a covering letter at the beginning of the Longland Report from the Countryside Commission saying that the recommendations which were set out in detail are unanimously approved by the Countryside Commission?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that may be so, but I should not like to endorse it or confirm it without being able to check it. Nevertheless, I am glad of this campaign because it has concentrated minds on this problem and among other things has enabled me to write to over 100 Members of another place explaining our proposal in detail and answering their queries. That is what I must now do to your Lordships.
Last October my right honourable friend called together the Countryside

139
Commission, the County Councils Association and the voluntary amenity bodies. Shortly before that meeting, the Countryside Commission and the County Councils Association agreed a joint statement, which has already been referred to, putting forward a new solution in regard to administration of the parks. This was an arrangement entered into voluntarily by the Countryside Commission, and my right honourable friend considered it very carefully, bearing in mind the weight of responsible opinion there was behind it. He was, of course, well aware of the counter arguments for independent boards with precepting powers. But he was convinced, and I hope your Lordships will be, too, when I have finished, that the new solution advocated by the Countryside Commission and the County Councils Association will bring considerable improvements upon the present system. Those who are campaigning for independent boards do not yet appreciate the full significance of our proposals. When they do, I am sure that they will recognise that they represent a very real advance. That is why I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for this chance of setting them out in some detail.
In the first place, we intend generally to leave the administration of the national parks with the elected bodies. While not denying the achievements of the independent boards—we propose to retain the two existing boards in the Peaks and the Lakes Parks—there is the criticism that the independent boards are not sufficiently answerable to the electors. We are in the process of planning a reorganised and strengthened local government structure and we see no reason why the administration of national parks, if carefully and properly devised, should not find its place within this system. It is highly desirable that it should do so, if only because no less than a quarter of a million people live in the parks and deserve to have their affairs dealt with by people who are answerable to them.
I should like to explain briefly but in outline what we propose to do and then to go on and show how it will benefit particular parks and their administration. These are in outline our proposals. First, we put an end once and for all to the
140
fragmented responsibility in the administration of the national parks; we provide for a single statutory body to be concerned with the administration, the management and the planning of each park. Secondly, we provide, again by Statute, that there shall be appointed for each park a single national park officer who will be of senior status, furnished with staff and specialists and supplied with the wherewithal to devote himself and his colleagues, free from other distractions, to the management of each national park. I hope that those two points answer two of the specific questions which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked me. Thirdly, we require, again by Statute—
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, that does not quite answer me. What I said was that a statement of good intention is not enough. What I want to know is whether in fact it is possible to delegate the powers. I know that the agreement between the two bodies is that there shall be a statutory definition of the delegated powers, but I also asked the noble Lord whether in his opinion this was possible at all.
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords; I have not quite finished. I will come on to that point in a moment. Thirdly, we are going to require, again by Statute, that that park authority shall produce with all due despatch a single comprehensive plan of their policies and a programme for action for the national park in their care; and that will certainly include development control powers. I would rather not go into further detail now, but this will all be provided for by amendment in another place to the Local Government Reform Bill.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a very short question? Would that include any responsibility for highways? I did mention this.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I was just coming on to highways. No park authority, board or committee has so far been a highways authority, and we do not intend or propose that they should be.
The fourth main proposal which we intend to enact is to ensure that the lion's share, the greater part, of all that is needed to carry out that plan and that

141
action is furnished by the nation as a whole, through the Exchequer, for the enjoyment of the nation as a whole in the parks; and I will elaborate a little on the financial aspects. The first three of those four proposals will be secured in full and in detail by means of Amendments to the Local Government Reform Bill which is now before another place. The last one will be enacted in legislation on local government finance.
Now let me go on to illustrate how these proposals will benefit the national parks as they now are. The introduction of a single statutory body will completely remove the present fragmented committee structure, which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, outlined to us and which everybody admits is a serious weakness. For instance, responsibility for the Yorkshire Dales National Park is gravely split now between the West Riding and the North Riding, each of whom has a separate planning committee for their area of the park, not to mention the joint advisory committee for the whole of the park. Boundary changes under the Local Government Reform Bill will put most of the park in the North Riding, and the provisions relating to national parks in that Bill will secure that the small part lying outside will be treated as part of the whole park by the same authority. With Exmoor, for instance, we would expect to see the separate committees of the Devon and of the Somerset County Councils replaced by a single authority, probably a committee of Somerset County Council with representatives of Devon County Council on it. Snowdonia and the Brecon Beacons Park, each split between three county councils, will also benefit in a similar way.
The appointment of a statutory national parks officer for each park will bring together, under him and under his staff, the management of several functions now divided between different departments of different authorities. The Peak Park, as many noble Lords have already said, has the advantage—and it is the only park that does—of having a single officer who can co-ordinate management and other activities within that park. We intend that this advantage—which has undoubtedly produced great benefits for the Peak Park—will be secured by Statute for all the other parks. This will ensure a greater concentration
142
of thought and effort, particularly on day-to-day management, because he will not be distracted by any other duties. Adequate planning and management staff will be provided to enable the single authority to carry out all its particular functions, and the specialist services and the support of other council staff will be made available to the authority as they are required, as is done at the moment in the Peak Park.
The need for comprehensive plans and programmes derived from them for the national parks is evident. Exmoor and the Brecon Beacons, for instance, need to develop policies to cater for the changes and the increases in pressure on those parks brought by the M4, the M5 and the M6. Although the Yorkshire Dales Park, for instance, is large and expansive, it is subject, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet said, to immense and increasing pressures from the Yorkshire conurbation that can only be satisfied by planning and management on a substantial and comprehensive scale In the Brecon Beacons a comprehensive plan will be drawn up which will cover the whole park and yet have proper regard to the diverse characters of its separate parts as one moves from East to West, and the variation in pressure on those parts.
The Government's proposals on finance are particularly important. We do not intend to rely on precepting powers. I should have set out the reasons for this if my noble friend Lady Young had not already done so. We recognise that the responsibility of the nation as a whole for providing adequate and substantial assistance to the national parks is through the Exchequer, and at this stage we cannot say precisely in what way this assistance will be given because a radical review is now being undertaken of the whole question. But I can give this assurance. Whatever system emerges as a result of this review, it will take fully into account the demand on certain counties (I have in mind particularly the Pembroke Coastal Park and the Northumberland Park) on behalf of the nation as a whole to incur expenditure on national parks, including staff cost. We have not so far sufficiently recognised the administrative costs of national park authorities in

143
considering the proper scale of Exchequer assistance to them. There have been specific grants, but those are all for particular projects. We propose in the future to shoulder on the Exchequer the major part of the burden of the overall cost of administering the parks.
In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, I would confirm that of course the other specific grants will continue—the agricultural grant, the tourist grant, transport grants, development grants and so on. I am sure that this will be a considerable help in getting the plans and policies for the national parks prepared and then implemented. Without substantial Exchequer assistance, Somerset, for instance, would be hard put to provide all that will be needed in Exmoor in the near future. With large parts of two national parks within its area—the Moors and the Dales—the new North Yorkshire County Council must be assured of substantial Exchequer support towards the overall cost of administering these two extensive parks. Many of the counties with responsibility for the national parks are, as it happens, among the least well endowed, and the case for the Exchequer giving the major part of support is one we are determined to meet effectively. But I am sure everyone would agree that expenditure, important as it is, is not all. Careful and sensitive control of management, sustained and patient reconciliation of the many diverse interests in each national park, will always be needed We believe that under the proposals we are about to put forward the new statutory authorities and their officers and staff will all be far better equipped and furnished to provide this care and attention that the great
144
heritage that we call the national parks needs.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could answer one question. He has very persuasively described the advantages of doing it the Government's way. If all that is so perfect, why do the Government propose to leave the Peak District Park Committee and the Lake District Park Board as they are?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, broadly speaking, because they have worked well and because they have developed a number of devices which in practice ensure that they do operate within local government. For instance, in the Peak Park Board the Clerk of the Board is the Clerk of the Derbyshire County Council. In the Lakes Board the planning advice comes from the three county planning officers, acting jointly, and the Clerk of the Lakes Park Board is the Clerk of the Westmorland County Council. The setting of the Boards within local government has been secured by a series of sensible and practical devices.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if the noble Lord will be so patient, may I ask why he does not avoid all this horrible national fuss and do the whole thing that way?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, because we think the way we have described is better, for the reasons I have set out.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before ten o'clock.