Sitting of 22 February 1972

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ANGLESEY MARINE TERMINAL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  To be read a Second time upon Monday next at Seven o'clock.
  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.
  LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 7th March.
  MILFORD DOCKS BILL (By Order)
  To be read a Second time upon Monday next at Seven o'clock.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Cancer
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to extend the screening services for cancer of the breast in the Gloucester area.
    Dr. Stuttafordasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he hopes to have the report of the Committee, set up by himself, to inquire into the early detection of cancer of the breast.
    Mr. James Hillasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has in hand to extend the services at present being privately financed for the screening of cancer of the breast to the National Health Service, with particular reference to the Southampton area.
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how many facilities are available in Rugby for the screening for cancer of the breast;
    (2) what women were given screening tests for cancer of the breast in Rugby during 1971.
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now make further public funds available for breast cancer screening clinics; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now take steps to extend the units available in the National Health Service capable of screening women to give an early diagnosis of breast cancer by mammography and clinical examination; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): The principal source of information on the value of pre-symptomatic screening for breast cancer is a study currently in progress in New York. The results so far available are not conclusive and it would therefore be premature to consider introducing a breast cancer screening service within the National Health Service, and further assessment is necessary. It is too early to say when the expert committee I have appointed for this purpose will report.
    Clinical examination of the breast or instruction in self-examination, or both, are offered to women at a number of local authority clinics when cervical smears are taken. This is done in clinics in Gloucester and Southampton, but not at Rugby.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1970, which is the latest year for which I have figures available, 2,651 women were screened by Gloucestershire County Council Health Department, 1,072 women were screened

    1075
    by Gloucester City Health Department and more than 2,743 women were screened by the Staywell Mobile Clinic, which is a voluntary organisation receiving only a small grant from the county authority. In view of the excellent service that this valuable organisation provides, will my hon. Friend urge his right hon. Friend to make a substantial Government grant?
    Mr. Alison: The making of grants to voluntary bodies performing at local level is a matter for the local authorities concerned. In view of the interest which Gloucester is showing in this matter, I imagine the local authorities will look with some sympathy towards this voluntary organisation.
    Dr. Stuttaford: Is my hon. Friend aware that the New York study, of which he speaks rather disparagingly, has shown that early detection of carcinoma of the breast has halved the death rate? Is he aware that this figure has been borne out by other centres in the world and that there is a danger that in this country women will die while doctors quarrel—and that his Department seems to be getting involved?
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend will note that the sponsors and managers of the New York experiment themselves take a note of cautious optimism, a course which is advocated by the World Health Organisation in its recent report on mass health examinations.
    Mr. Price: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is not as helpful in this matter as he often is in others? Can he give figures to show how many women are having examinations privately? If those figures are as high as we expect, will he ensure that in due course equal facilities are available under the National Health Service for those who need them?
    Mr. Alison: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures he is seeking for the obvious reason that we do not collect these figures. As to extending the service to the National Health Service, that turns upon a conviction that the screening procedures would be a net beneficial asset and not, possibly, a liability.
    Mrs. Butler: In view of the need to expand the present breast cancer screening facilities so that they are available to all women who are at risk, will the
    1076
    Minister say something a little more encouraging about what his Department is doing to resolve the problem?
    Mr. Alison: We are looking at this question with the utmost seriousness, and, indeed, hopefulness, but the hon. Lady I am sure appreciates that there is the possibility of a real hazard here. False positives and false negatives are only too frequent occurrences in these procedures, and real hazards exist which it would be improper for my Department to ignore in the interests of hastening too rapidly.
    Mr. Hill: What plans has my hon. Friend to keep the Royal Marsden clinic going, since it already has five years' experience in this subject?
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend may be aware that a special group under Professor McKeown studying breast cancer screening services is considering whether the facilities at the Royal Marsden clinic may be used as part of this study. No decision on this matter has yet been taken.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the hon. Gentleman not make a clean breast of it and confess that his Department is being overcautious? Does he recall that although the New York fluoridation experiments took place in 1951, it is now 1972 and we have still not succeeded in that matter? Therefore, will he take the initiative and use the peripatetic services at his disposal, such as mass radiography and blood transfusion, in a move towards more preventive services, and include within them mammography?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the New York scheme is not yet complete. We shall have to discover whether the initially positive and helpful results ascertained in a particular age group will persist beyond the short term.
    Sir R. Cary: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that the Government cannot give any direct aid to the voluntary organisations mentioned by my hon. Friend in his original Question?
    Mr. Alison: The position is that my Department gives help to voluntary organisations in their national activities through their central organisations, but their local activities—and bodies which

    1077
    exist only at local level—are matter, for support by local authorities.
    Dr. Summerskill: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that his reply is extremely disappointing since it was hoped that this Government would show more sympathy towards preventive medicine and to diagnosis before cure? Would he accept that it is a fact that 10,000 women a year are dying from breast cancer—thousands more than die from cancer of the cervix of the womb? Will the Government, who have shown commendable energy and interest in cytology screening services, keep a close eye on the situation and change their mind at an early date?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Lady will appreciate that we do everything necessary in terms of diagnosis. It is the treatment or screening of pre-symptomatic conditions with which we are here concerned, and uncertainty in this respect imposes on us a proper caution. But the positive approach we have adopted is illustrated by the appointment of Professor McKeown's study group which we hope will work towards a positive end.

    Pensions (Review)
    Miss Quennellasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of people who are not now pensioners but who will benefit from the annual review of pensions and related benefits.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): The number varies with the incidence of sickness and unemployment, but it is estimated that at any one time between 3½ and 4 million people are receiving one of the benefits, other than retirement pension, which will be affected by the annual reviews.
    Miss Quennell: How many people in total are likely to benefit under the new arrangements, and of that figure how many are likely to receive widows' allowances?
    Mr. Dean: About 11 million people altogether will benefit; that is the approximate number of people in receipt of benefit at any one time. Incidentally, they are receiving cash allowances which amount to no fewer than £50 million each week. The number below retire
    1078
    ment age involved in widows' benefits is 650,000, and a substantial number of other widows receive retirement benefits.
    Mr. O'Malley: In view of the large number of people who have been unemployed for an increasingly long period of time as a result of Conservative policies, would the hon. Gentleman look at the desirability—we certainly regard this suggestion as very desirable—of earnings-related unemployment benefit being paid for a longer period than six months?
    Mr. Dean: It was always felt by the Labour Government that, when earnings-related supplement runs out, it is better for people to be helped by the more flexible arrangements provided by supplementary benefit.

    Dental Services
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is aware that the new increased dental charges are having an adverse effect on dental health; and what steps he intends to take to eliminate these effects.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): As my hon. Friend indicated in his reply to the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Joel Barnett) on 25th January, evidence so far available does not suggest that the present system of dental charges has had this effect.—[Vol. 829, c. 370.]
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that dentists in Scotland have expressed the view that fewer and fewer people are going to the dentists and that when they make a visit they ask for extractions rather than fillings because extractions are cheaper? Will not this situation be worsened following the recent announcement about increased charges to pay dentists higher salaries? Will the right hon. Gentleman take another look at this matter and consult the dental profession to obtain from it firm evidence to confirm the information contained in my Question?
    Sir K. Joseph: I shall be in continual touch with the dental profession, but it is too soon for statistics to give us the answer we need. In the past, increases in charges have always led to a pre-increase surge and a post-increase dip, after which the basic rising trend has

    1079
    reasserted itself. I still believe that this is what will happen.
    Mr. Molloy: Is the Secretary of State aware that the current situation is causing unnecessary anguish and pain for both dentists and patients, and that dentists are feeling frustrated with the present arrangements? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take my hon. Friend's advice to look at the situation before it gets too bad?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am continually looking at the situation. The fact is that about 60 per cent. of dental treatment courses are free and a large number of the remaining 40 per cent. are being charged at a lower figure than that which was charged before the change. I do not agree that there is any evidence to justify disquiet.
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has for the development of National Health Service dental services.
    Sir K. Joseph: I have just invited the British Dental Association to meet me in order to discuss arrangements for launching a joint examination of ways of securing the long-term development and improvement of the dental services available under the National Health Service.
    Mrs. Short: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that there is an acute shortage of dentists in many parts of the country; that in the last ten years there has been an increase of only 6 per cent. in the number of dentists who have, nevertheless, done a considerably greater amount—about 67 per cent.—of dental work; that, because of the shortage, in many towns National Health Service dentistry is virtually unobtainable; that patients requiring dental treatment have to attend dentists as private patients; and that the dental service in these areas is in danger of breaking down completely? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore undertake to discuss this matter with the B.D.A. and also to look at the number of students entering dental schools for training as dentists? This matter is very urgent.
    Sir K. Joseph: The short answer is, yes, I will. However, I should not like to leave the impression that these problems will be easily or quickly solved.
    1080
    They are part of the agenda which I expect to discuss with the B.D.A.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: When my right hon. Friend has these discussions with the B.D.A., will he see what can be done to solve the problem which arises from the fact that eventually there is no dentist of last resort, as there is with doctors, and see that there is a dentist to whom a person can be directed finally if he cannot find a National Health Service dentist?
    Sir K. Joseph: There are arrangements for names to be made available at hospitals and other places, but I will re-examine the situation.
    Mrs. Castle: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the costs of the dentists for the more specialised services are now being so inadequately covered under the National Health Service arrangements that many dentists are being induced to persuade their patients to have private treatment for anything but the most basic arrangements or priority services? Will he make it an aim of his policy to prevent the continuing development of a two-tier service with the more routine work done under the National Heath Service and the more elaborate work done by private practice?
    Sir K. Joseph: The rates are fixed by the Dental Rates Study Group, but I am sure that the dentists will raise the points to which the right hon. Lady referred in the discussions to which I look forward.
    Miss Quennell: When my right hon. Friend holds these discussions, will he bear in mind the serious need for some form of emergency dental service in large areas of the country where sometimes the hospitals are unable to provide the necessary services for the three critical dental emergencies which occur?
    Sir K. Joseph: I will certainly make sure that this subject is on the agenda.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfield: When the Minister has these discussions, will he bear in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) said about the National Health Service in dentistry being in serious danger of breaking down in many parts of the country? Will he also bear in mind that this is being aided and abetted by consultants who specialise in telling dentists how to sell dentistry?
    Sir K. Joseph: There is a minority which is willing to pay for dental services. My objective is to improve the services which are available under the National Health Service. The House should recognise that dental courses under the National Health Service have been rising steadily and, I believe, are still rising, though I admit that in certain areas and for certain forms of treatment there is a problem.

    Psychiatric Services
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement as to his policy for expansion of preventive psychiatric services and the provision of facilities for mental aftercare.
    Sir K. Joseph: Recent advice I have sent to hospital and local authorities envisages a comprehensive hospital and community service for the mentally ill in every district. I have asked hospital and local authorities to consult together to ensure that their plans dovetail, and further guidance on the pattern of community services is in preparation. The resources allocated for local authority capital expenditure take account of the need for development.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in the matter of after-care it is far more humane as well as cheaper to concentrate on rehabilitation rather than to fall back on re-admission? Will he concentrate on the problems of local authorities who wish to meet their obligations but who run into financial obstacles if they seek to do so?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir; those are all unobjectionable sentiments, but we are not as aware as we should like to be on how to achieve these objectives in rehabilitation.
    Mr. Mayhew: What reason does the right hon. Gentleman have for supposing that hospitals and local authorities will co-operate as he suggests?
    Sir K. Joseph: I shall be monitoring this co-operation from the hospital end intensively, and I shall shortly ask local authorities for a ten-year plan on the social services side which will enable me to see how well their plans dovetail in with the hospital plans.

    Elderly Persons (Accommodation)
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has for expanding Part III accommodation for the elderly; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: As I announced in the House on 22nd November last, I am making substantial additional loan authorisations available to local authorities to enable them to replace the former workhouses and other unsatisfactory buildings and increase their overall provision of homes for the elderly.—[Vol. 826, c. 957.]
    Mr. Duffy: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. May I assure him that his intention is greatly appreciated in Yorkshire and Humberside where the facilities are appreciated by both patients and relatives and where the demand for places still considerably exceeds the number available. May I further ask him to bear in mind the tendency for these facilities to be used for borderline geriatric hospital cases? Will he invite hospital authorities to think seriously about their own provision in this respect?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. I shall shortly be sending out to all concerned a new circular setting out guidance on the treatment of psycho-geriatric cases.

    Influenza Vaccines
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further consideration he has now given to the effectiveness of anti-flu vaccination; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: Influenza vaccines currently available can be expected to give short-lived protection for between 40 to 60 per cent. of individuals vaccinated. A further trial of available vaccines is now in progress.
    Mr. Brewis: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which marks an advance in the situation. Would he be prepared to take into account the research which has already been done in countries such as France, the United States and Japan, whose Governments have sponsored anti-influenza vaccines officially?
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend might know that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation advises that certain exposed groups might beneficially be vaccinated on that basis in this country. On the question of research, the Public Health Laboratory is undertaking a large-scale trial of available vaccine.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I tried one of these anti-flu vaccinations not long ago and that I have had colds on and off ever since? When will the Minister do something about the exaggerated claims of drug manufacturers?
    Mr. Alison: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will allow us to take him to the Public Health Laboratory for a trial period?
    Dr. Stuttaford: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a considerable difference between influenza, which will kill, and the cold, which may be inconvenient, and that, although vaccination gives only a short-lived protection, so indeed is the 'flu season only short-lived?
    Mr. Alison: I take my hon. Friend's point. I think that if we allowed all people who had colds to progress as far as getting pneumonia we could then cure them.
    Dr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the statistics which he has for the efficacy of the vaccine, in which he said that 40 to 60 per cent. were protected, include the large number of people who, while they may not be completely protected from the ravages of 'flu, certainly get it in a much milder form?
    Mr. Alison: I cannot answer that question, which borders upon the realms of specialised medical knowledge, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman about it

    Psychiatric Hospitals (Discharged Patients)
    Mr. Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will consider seeking to introduce a fixed scale of payments and benefits, based on a regional structure, for patients discharged from psychiatric hospitals into
    1084
    approved private accommodation in the community.
    Mr. Dean: No, Sir. A fixed scale would be less flexible than the existing arrangements. Local authorities have powers to make contributions towards the cost of accommodation where earnings or supplementary benefits are insufficient to meet the needs of ex-patients who require supportive aftercare.
    Mr. Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that his right hon. Friend's highly desirable scheme for placing these former patients in society could—I put it no more strongly than that at this stage—be put in jeopardy if the necessary funds are not available to the recipients in order that they can pay for this approved accommodation?
    Mr. Dean: Yes. It is highly desirable that this should be so. I know that my hon. Friend has a particular case in mind, about which I have written to him. I hope that he feels that my reply was satisfactory.

    Remand Home Vacancies (North-West)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has received the plan of the Children's Regional Planning Committee for the North-West; and if he will make a statement on proposals to improve the position regarding remand home vacancies for girls and boys in the region.
    Mr. Alison: Yes, Sir. We are now considering the plan, including proposals for the accommodation of children remanded to the care of local authorities.
    Mr. Blaker: Will my hon. Friend tell us whether he has yet been able to satisfy himself that the proposals are adequate to remedy the difficult situation in which some local authorities in the North West have found themselves regarding remand home accommodation in recent years, as a result of which too often boys and girls have had to be remanded in police detention rooms?
    Mr. Alison: My Department is examining the proposals placed before it by local authorities concerned. My hon. Friend may be aware that some of the difficulties arise because of unavoidable

    1085
    bunching. In the first three-quarters of 1971, boys' homes in the North West were 75 to 80 per cent. occupied and girls' homes were 76 to 90 per cent. occupied.

    Disabled Persons (Electro-Mechanical Equipment)
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will institute a departmental study on methods of rationalising and expanding the development and manufacture of specialised electro-mechanical equipment for registered disabled persons, and the financing of such equipment.
    Mr. Alison: There is a continuous study of ways of rationalising and expanding the development and manufacture of equipment of all kinds needed in the National Health Service.
    Mr. Dykes: I appreciate my hon. Friend's answer and the difficulty. However, could we not have a more positive answer? Because of the relatively early stage of development of this machinery, its high cost and general lack of availability in large numbers, many disabled people are being deprived of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said was equipment to make their conditions as normal as possible. Will the Department look at this matter more energetically?
    Mr. Alison: My right hon. Friend has set up a small fact-finding group to examine questions relating to the provision of equipment for disabled people generally. We hope to have their report before too long.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that we are grateful not to him but to the whole House, for the efforts which have been made to get equipment like this for the disabled? Is he aware that the numbers have quadrupled in recent times? Will he also take it from me that we may get bogus manufacturers trying to produce equipment without safety factors? Will he therefore make sure that his Department at all times insists that there shall be reserve powers available so that the severely disabled do not lose confidence and can be protected for at least 24 hours in the event of failure?
    Mr. Alison: I noted very carefully what the hon. Gentleman said. This matter appropriately falls within the ambit of the study group which has been set up in my Department.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: If we can afford to spend another £66 million a year on research and development for military purposes, as suggested in the current White Paper on Defence, why can we not spend more on research and development for severely disabled people?
    Mr. Alison: The £66 million to which the hon. Member refers is, nevertheless, exceeded by very many headings of the expenditure we make on vital areas of the National Health Service.

    Death Grant
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in view of the rising cost of burials, he will increase the death grant; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Charles R. Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement indicating what proposals he has for increasing the death grant national health insurance entitlement.
    Mr. Dean: I must ask the hon. Members to await the statement my right hon. Friend will be making in due course on our proposals arising out of this year's review.
    Mr. Dempsey: Would the Minister not agree that since the present grant was fixed funeral costs have escalated and the level of grant no longer represents a fair contribution towards expenses? Accordingly, does he not think the time is overdue when the rate of this grant should be raised to a more realistic level?
    Mr. Dean: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the rise in the cost of funerals but I hope he will accept that it has not been the practice in the past to increase the death grant at each uprating. This is one of the many priorities which my right hon. Friend will be bearing in mind in this year's review.
    Mr. Morris: I thank the Minister for his reply, but will he bear in mind that the ever-increasing cost of living is

    1087
    nothing compared with the ever-increasing cost of dying? My constituents tell me that the average cost of a simple funeral is about £100–£120. As the child of any family is restricted in the amount of insurance which he or she may take out in respect of a parent, is it not time that people were relieved of this financial burden at what is obviously a very distressing time in their lives?
    Mr. Dean: This is a question of priorities—of how one rates it when resources are limited, along with the needs of pensioners, widows and the like. My right hon. Friend will bear this point in mind but I cannot give any commitment.
    Mr. McCrindle: While questioning the figures given by the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris), may I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that there is a great deal of merit in the Question asked by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey)? Recently in my constituency there was evidence of a very substantial increase in local authority burial charges. Would my hon. Friend bear this very much in mind when the review comes along?
    Mr. Dean: Yes, I will certainly bear that in mind.

    Social Service Departments
    Mr. Milneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress made by his Department in establishing closer liaison with local authority social welfare departments in the work of the Department of Health and Social Security throughout the country and in the Northern Region in particular.
    Mr. Dean: The regional social work service of my Department exists in order to maintain two-way contact with local authority social service departments, and one of its regional offices is in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. There is also close and continuing consultation between social service departments and local social security offices about matters of mutual concern.
    Mr. Milne: Is the Minister aware that this is a very welcome development and is very helpful in the areas where it is being practised, carried out and extended? But there is still a need for a
    1088
    greater liaison between the Departments mentioned in the Question and the continuance of this will be of real benefit
    Mr. Dean: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he said. I agree that much progress has been made since the social service departments were set up in local authorities and since we set up the new social work service in the Department. But a great deal more can still be done to ensure that we get the two parts of the service locked in closely together.
    Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the Minister aware that I agree with all that my hon. Friend says? Millions of people in this country in these days of competition and inflation find it very hard indeed to live. Will the Under-Secretary instruct the district officers in the social security offices, who are very humane, to use even more compassion, because this is needed in the North-West of England? Will he tell them to extend their compassion because this is the only way in which people will get through the winter?
    Mr. Dean: I am most grateful for what the hon. Member said about the compassion and the service that officers of the Department provide. In recent weeks, in particular, they have been working very creditably under great pressure.

    Kidney Machines
    Mr. Boothasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will increase the grant paid to patients treating themselves with kidney machines in their homes to a level equivalent to the average cost of the electricity used by the machines.
    Mr. Alison: Hospital authorities have been advised that it is their responsibility to pay for the electricity used by the artificial kidney machine. If the hon. Member will let me have details of any difficulties I shall be glad to look into them.
    Mr. Booth: Is the Minister aware that the grant being paid in the North West in general and, to my knowledge, in my constituency is very much below the cost of operating these machines? In addition to the cost of the current for the machines, many of these patients have to bear the cost of additional heating in the rooms where the machines are

    1089
    installed. I very much welcome his undertaking to look into the problem.
    Mr. Alison: It is the responsibility of the regional hospital board to keep up with price increases charged by the electricity authority. Regional boards, however, are not responsible for the cost of heating rooms where the machinery is installed.
    Mr. Jeffrey Archer: When does my hon. Friend hope that it will be possible for all people who need a kidney machine to have easy access to one?
    Mr. Alison: If it is a question of adaptation of facilities and premises and not a strict clinical recommendation by the doctor concerned, powers already exist to adapt homes.
    Mr. Marks: Are the hospital authorities told to inform patients of their rights in this respect and in respect of travel expenses and other such matters or do they always wait for patients to ask?
    Mr. Alison: Patients are told about this when the setting up of the dialysis unit in the home is arranged—which has to be done through the hospital.

    Children (Cost)
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will estimate, from information available to him, the average additional cost per year for a married man with average industrial earnings of having one child, two children, and three children, respectively.
    Sir K. Joseph: We do not have the information required to make an estimate of the annual cost of having children.
    Mr. Pardoe: Is the Minister aware that I rather suspected that that might be the answer, but that it is inadequate. A very large part of our social security system is based on the figure he cannot give. Is he aware the additional allowance on the supplementary benefits scales for a child aged 5 to 11 is 21 per cent. of that for a married couple, compared with 37 per cent. recommended in Beveridge and 40 per cent. given in Japan, America and Germany? Why is that?
    Sir K. Joseph: There is a wide range of circumstances which the different facets of the social security system try to take
    1090
    into account. There is a wide range of other factors to be taken into account before such judgments as the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make can accurately be made. But if he would tell me what he has in mind in particular, I will try to arrive at an accurate figure.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: When prices go up, the men may get the wage increases but it is the women who face the price increases. Would the Secretary of State not agree that now is the time to introduce family allowances for the first child?
    Sir K. Joseph: That is easier said than done. It would be a very big operation which to a large extent would be unnecessary since the vast majority of families with one child—there are four million of them—and with a first child who do not receive family allowances do not need extra help in that way.
    Mr. O'Malley: While I recognise that the Government's top priority through tax concessions is help to the wealthy, does the Secretary of State not think that the Government ought to keep the Conservative election pledge to help parents with moderate incomes by increasing family allowances and preferably by making these family allowances tax free?
    Sir K. Joseph: The House has debated this in great detail on many occasions. I am not in the least defensive about the fact that this country requires encouragement to the enterprising as well as help for those who need help, and it is Conservative policy to provide both.

    Mentally Ill Persons
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will issue a White Paper on services for the mentally sick.
    Sir K. Joseph: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 15th February.—[Vol. 831, c. 65–6.]
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the Secretary of State aware that while few people would challenge his objectives for these services, especially his aim to close our psychiatric hospitals within 15 years, there is concern about the vagueness of his plans and his recent advice to hospitals and local authorities? Will he therefore set out a specific plan for the powers needed, the timing,

    1091
    and the costings so as to carry out this project within a stated time?
    Sir K. Joseph: I have studied very carefully the views of the organisation of which the hon. Gentleman is chairman, and I look forward to commenting upon them at the annual general meeting of his organisation later this week. The answer is rather too lengthy to give to a supplementary question.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Before issuing a White Paper, will the right hon. Gentleman institute a full-scale inquiry into conditions at Napsbury Mental Hospital in general and in particular into the death of a Watford woman patient there who is reported to have died from severe internal injuries?
    Sir K. Joseph: I understand that police inquiries are in progress about the very sad incident, and I shall have to wait until they are completed before making any decision.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members on both sides share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) that the advisory document so far issued is so vague as to be totally inadequate? In view of the revelations of a succession of recent inquiries into the scandals in some of our mental hospitals, it is imperative that we should have a detailed and fully costed White Paper as soon as possible.
    Sir K. Joseph: I take the subject intensely seriously, but I hope the House will wait until I have spoken later this week specifically to the criticisms before coming to any attempted assessment.

    Nursing (Salmon Committee's Proposals)
    Mr. Cockeramasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospitals implemented the Salmon proposals for nursing in 1971; what reports he has received of the practical working of this scheme; and how many hospitals he expects to introduce the Salmon proposals in 1972.
    Mr. Alison: The first step in implementing the recommendations of the Salmon Committee in a hospital group is the appointment of a chief or principal nursing officer. Fifty-one such appoint
    1092
    ments were made in 1971 bringing the total to two-thirds of all hospital groups in England and Wales. A further 60 appointments are expected in 1972. We hope to issue a report shortly on experience in implementation.
    Mr. Cockeram: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of the Salmon proposals to those nurses who wish to make a lifetime career in the profession, because they offer them a career structure which they have not previously enjoyed?
    Mr. Alison: I believe that the Salmon proposals and their implementation are proving increasingly powerful magnets to recruitment in hospitals which have Salmon systems.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that as important as, if not more important than, implementing the Salmon proposals is to treat the nurses as a special case in respect of salaries in the same way as Wilberforce has recommended for the coal miners, and that public opinion is just as strongly behind the nurses, and will force the Government into action on their behalf, as it was behind the miners?
    Mr. Alison: I do not want to anticipate the constructive and profitable negotiations going on in the Whitley Council about nurses' pay.

    Heating Allowances
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many extra heating allowances had been paid by the Supplementary Benefits Commission at the latest available date; and in how many cases this allowance is being paid in addition to the special long-term allowance.
    Mr. Dean: At November, 1970, 196,000 allowances were in payment; and in 181,000 cases the long-term addition, which covers special needs up to the level of 50p a week, was payable as well. Further figures reflecting the recently improved levels of heating allowances will be available in the spring.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Minister aware that in some cases of which I have evidence the extra allowance for heating is being denied because the long-term addition is being paid? Will he make

    1093
    clear his Department's welcome of the efforts made by bodies such as the trades council and others in my constituency to try to bring to the attention of old people the allowances available for them?
    Mr. Dean: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says. We are doing that in the review of benefits now taking place. Each book, each individual case, is being looked at carefully to see whether more help may be available. But the extra heating allowances are special allowances available over and above the long-term addition for those who have special needs for them.
    Dame Irene Ward: This is a very important matter which has already been raised from the North. When will my hon. Friend be in a position to let us have some information? I am very grateful to him for the inquiries being made. Other people have been concerned with the matter for a considerable time.
    Mr. Dean: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for the details of cases she has sent me, which are being reviewed. It is clear from them that there is a great deal more to learn about this age-old problem than we yet know.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is there not a need for a big extension of the heating allowances to a much wider range of pensioners on supplementary benefit, particularly in view of the increase in the price of gas and electricity, and possibly of coal?
    Mr. Dean: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will certainly consider that. But it is a wider problem, because in some cases having more money available for heating merely means heating the street or damp walls. We must tackle bad housing as well.
    Mr. Fred Evans: Will the Minister bear in mind a report issued today by Task Force. In an examination in nine London boroughs of old people who are sadly in need of warmth, 27 per cent. declared that they do not get enough warmth by day and 20·9 per cent. that they do not get enough warmth by night, and of the 553 old people receiving supplementary benefit who were asked, only 10·7 per cent. were aware of their eligibility. Will the hon. Gentleman do something to try to cure the situation urgently?
    Mr. Dean: I think I know the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Every time we receive such reports we follow up the cases individually.

  TOURISM
  Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry concerning the development of tourism; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir. There is already full co-operation between all the Departments concerned; and they in turn work closely with the tourist boards and local authorities.
  Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some people in the tourist industry would be glad if the Government would do what successive Governments have failed to do, which is to credit the tourist industry with the importance its past figures merit? Is he aware that in the West Country, for instance, tourism is now the biggest employer of labour, bigger than agriculture and aviation, and that the British Hotels and Restaurants Association has just issued figures showing that 93,000 job opportunities are available in the industry? There seems to be great difficulty in persuading people, particularly in areas of declining industries, to change jobs into the newer industries such as tourism.
  Mr. Heath: We fully appreciate the vital importance of the tourist industry, which is one of our major growth industries. I agree with my hon. Friend about the employment opportunities in it. At the same time, it is necessary to encourage training, and there are nearly 4,000 registered trainees in the industry as a whole.
  Mr. Milne: Is the Prime Minister aware that the appointment of a Minister for Tourism is a long overdue necessity, and that such an appointment would also have the advantage of taking this very important growth industry from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has had no other experience of growth industries since his appointment?
  The Prime Minister: Successive Governments have examined the question. It is very important that tourism, aspects of which concern so many Departments, should come under a Secretary of State who can speak for it in the Cabinet.

  ISRAEL
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for seeking to pay an official visit to Israel.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary expects to make an official visit to Israel next month: but I have at present no plans to do so.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am very gratified to know that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is going, especially as it is some while since he visited the Arab countries. Can the Prime Minister give an assurance that the Government intend to play the rôle of the honest broker—well, honest as far as they can be—to bring together the natural resources of the Arab world and the great human and technical resources of the Jews in the interests of the peace of the whole area?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend visited the Arab Republic of Egypt from 12th to 15th September. On this occasion he is going to Israel. This demonstrates that we wish for nothing but peace in the Middle East. I believe it fair to say that since 1967 both Administrations have been working, within the context of the United Nations Resolution, to try to find a permanent settlement between Israel and the Arab countries.
  Mr. Churchill: As the greatest obstacle to the achievement of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East has been the direct military intervention by a super Power, establishing naval and air force bases in the area and introducing its own military and air force personnel to the extent of more than 15,000, will my right hon. Friend, in consultation with the allies of this country, press for the removal of those forces which pose such a direct threat to the independence of every State in the Middle East?
  The Prime Minister: This would obviously be taken into account by Egypt and the other Arab countries in negotiating a peace settlement. Once there is a peace treaty in which the Arab countries accept that Israel is there to stay and that they will live together, obviously the need for any external presence from another power is no longer necessary.

  AFRICA (COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES)
  Sir G. de Freitasasked the Prime Minister what plans he has to seek to pay official visits to Commonwealth countries in West and East Africa.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
  Sir G. de Freitas: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of those who saw the transition to independence of these African countries have realised that these countries appear to feel that they are forgotten today by Britain? Is he also aware that these countries have, in spite of Rhodesia, a very great respect for this country? Will he think again about this or, at least, about his right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary visiting them?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has it in mind to visit some of the countries of West Africa, certainly, and I hope that it will be possible for him to visit others. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the African countries feel forgotten, or that they have any justification for feeling forgotten. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development visited Zambia and Malawi in October, 1971, and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office visited The Gambia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Ghana in 1970; Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda in 1971; and Zaire, Swaziland, Botswana and Lesotho in January, 1972. It is apparent that there have been a considerable number of visits to African countries. We have also been able to welcome to London almost all the Heads of Government from black African Commonwealth countries in the last 18 months.

  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EMPLOYMENT (SPEECH)
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of State for Employment in Harrogate on 6th February on unemployment represents Government policy.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend drew attention to the massive Government measures aimed at reducing unemployment generally, as well as to special help for youth employment through extra apprenticeship and training opportunities and the new scheme for employing young people on work of social value.
  Mr. Skinner: I know that the Prime Minister has had a rough week, but he might have remembered that the Secretary of State for Employment also said in that speech that the Government's unemployment forecasts have gone completely haywire. How does that reconcile with the election pledges made by the Prime Minister that he would cut unemployment at a stroke? Will he consult the British nation again, or is this another example of a Cabinet Minister saying that the Prime Minister's words should not be taken too seriously?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has constantly pointed out to the House what the hon. Gentleman knows, that inflationary wage increases cause unemployment.
  Sir G. Nabarro: While dissociating myself absolutely from that ridiculous supplementary question, would my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister endeavour to press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that following his measures of last July there have been dramatic increases in the output of motor cars in the West Midlands but, notwithstanding this, that unemployment continues to rise in that area, and that we therefore want, at an early date, further reflationary measures?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that what has been happening in the motor industry is, again, the result of making better use of those employed in the factories. Productivity has greatly increased and so output has risen without more men being taken on. This is true now of a wide
  1098
  section of British industry. The remedy is that we have further investment and take advantage of markets, including the large European market. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has always indicated to the House that he must judge from time to time the extent to which any reflation may be necessary.
  Mr. Bidwell: Does the Prime Minister expect that this year's Budget will make any serious inroad on the entirely unacceptable unemployment figure?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reply that he could not anticipate his Budget—and nor can I.

  YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE
  Mr. Duffyasked the Prime Minister whether he will pay an official visit to the Yorkshire and Humberside Region in the near future.
  The Prime Minister: I visited the region in March and October of last year, but I have at present no plans for further official visits.
  Mr. Duffy: Is the Prime Minister aware that, paradoxically, the problem of Yorkshire and Humberside is that it has continued to be regarded as relatively prosperous at a time of underlying deterioration, so that now, in earnings, hours of work and employment in growth industries, it has tended to fall behind other regions? This state of deterioration was concealed for a long time by low unemployment and net emigration. In rethinking regional policy, will the Prime Minister bear in mind in-between regions such as Yorkshire and Humberside, which have been denied the remedial help available to other regions but whose problems and needs have now grown every bit as acute and urgent?
  The Prime Minister: I shall certainly hear that point in mind in the context of the priorities to be given to special development areas, development areas, and intermediate areas. But in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, I.D.C. approvals last year were for over 5 million square feet of floor space and an estimated additional employment of nearly 6,000. In the fourth quarter of 1971

  1099
  there was an increase compared with the previous quarter. I have indicated before that in various regions there is this hopeful sign of an increase in the floor space covered by I.D.C. approvals.
  Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us have no desire to welcome him to Humberside? We wish to welcome him to North Lincolnshire. Will he take seriously the plebiscite being held on whether those of North Lincolnshire wish to become part of Humberside or wish to remain yellow-bellies?
  The Prime Minister: I was aware of this difference of view in the area, and the controversy arises from the Local Government Bill now in Committee. The local authorities are now being given the opportunity to express their views on these proposals.
  Mr. James Johnson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the previous Administration began the Humber Feasibility Study, due to be published this year, and began estuarial development studies, of which Humberside was almost the leading estuary? It needs someone of the right hon. Gentleman's status to look at this matter. Would he please come to Hull and push the boat out there on our behalf?
  The Prime Minister: I have been to Hull many times, and I would always be happy to go again, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is in a position in the Cabinet to deal with all these matters.

  GERMAN FEDERAL REPUBLIC
  Mr. Spearingasked the Prime Minister when he expects to make his next official visit to Bonn.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to make a further visit to Bonn, but I look forward to welcoming Herr Brandt when he pays an official visit to this country on 20th and 21st April.
  Mr. Spearing: When the Prime Minister welcomes Herr Brandt, would he ask him how the scheme works out in practice whereby the Bundestag looks at articles in draft in the Community? Would he say why, if it can be organised
  1100
  in the Bundestag in Bonn, such a practice cannot be organised for the in Britain?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. On the last occasion I was in Bonn I discussed with the German Chancellor the workings of the German Parliament in relation to the European Community—not only the European Parliament but also the question of the Ministerial Council and its relationship to the Cabinet, and so on. Naturally, we are perfectly prepared to discuss this with any of the members of the Community and to learn from their experience over the past 12 years. But when my right hon. and learned Friend proposed, in the debate last week, that there should be an ad hoc committee of both Houses to examine this matter, this surely would be the purpose of that committee, and it would take into account the experience of the countries which are already members of the Community.
  Mr. Heffer: Would the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether he will discuss with Chancellor Brandt the question of European security and the whole idea of a European security conference? Will that be one of the priority items on the agenda?
  The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not customary to publish an agenda for visits of this kind, but I cannot imagine an official visit with the German Chancellor in which we did not discuss the question of a European security conference. After all, the timing for such a conference is bound up with the Ostpolitik, which is one of Chancellor Brandt's primary concerns. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that we shall go into this in considerable detail.

  M. POMPIDOU (TALKS)
  Q.7. Mr. Blakerasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his consultations with Monsieur Pompidou, during the latter's recent visit to the United Kingdom.
  Q.9. Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his official talks with President Pompidou.
  The Prime Minister: To my great regret I had to ask President Pompidou last Friday to postpone his visit to Chequers, because of the likelihood that discussions about the dispute on miners' pay would continue while he was here. I am already in touch with the President about another date for our meeting.
  Mr. Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House will hope that the President is able to find a date on which to come fairly soon? In view of the close identity of interests on so many matters now existing between France and this country, is not the time auspicious to make a forward move towards a closer alignment of foreign policies, probably in the context of the enlarged Communities?
  The Prime Minister: We have been working closely with the French Government, as we have with other members of the Community. In a number of cases, our policies are aligned. In some there are differences. Sometimes they are differences in timing. Sometimes they are differences of tactics. This is understandable. But the members of the Community and the four who have now signed the Treaty of Accession are working together closely at official level. In our case, a senior official from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office took part in the meeting of the political directors of the E.E.C. last week. This was the first time that we had been officially represented at such a meeting. The working arrangements are now becoming very close.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Since this visit, unfortunately, had to be put off because of a little local difficulty—presumably because my right hon. Friend did not want to offer the French President cold food—may I welcome the fact that this fixture is to be restored? Will my right hon. Friend point out to the President that, thanks to successive White Papers, everyone in this House, including the Leader of the Opposition, was aware, or should have been aware, of the constitutional implications of our application to join the Common Market?
  The Prime Minister: I know that the President of France follows these matters very closely and that he studies speeches in this House as well. I have no doubt that he will be fully aware of the position of the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the subject of an Anglo-French nuclear force be on the agenda?
  The Prime Minister: Again, there is no published agenda for a meeting of this kind. As this was to be a meeting at Chequers, it was also to be of a more informal kind than is normal at No. 10. However, as was stated at our last meeting in May, this was not an immediate question.

  OFFICERS' MESS, ALDERSHOT (EXPLOSION)
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I regret to have to inform the House that at 12.40 p.m. an explosion occurred in the Headquarters Officers' Mess of the 16th Parachute Brigade at Aldershot. Seven people were killed—one officer, one man and five women on the staff—and at least 13 are injured—nine officers, one staff sergeant and three further civilians of the mess staff. The police are investigating with the utmost urgency. In the meantime I have no further details. I am sure that the House will unite in condemning this outrage and in expressing sympathy with the relatives of those killed and all those injured.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: We on this side of the House of course wish to associate ourselves with the right hon. Gentleman in expressing deep sympathy for the relatives of those who have been killed at Aldershot. Is he aware that the Kilburn Battalion of the Provisional I.R.A. has, according to Press tapes, accepted responsibility for this outrage? Can any useful purpose be served in, as so frequently happens, pursuing a policy of revenge which produces seven innocent victims of the tragedy of Northern Ireland?
  Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of the injured are seriously injured and whether there is any danger to life? Is he in touch with his right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and will he inquire of him what security measures were taken with regard to the 16th Parachute Brigade, which had already been publicly threatened by the Provisional I.R.A.? Will he now ask

  1103
  his right hon. and noble Friend to undertake a review of security measures at Army bases throughout the United Kingdom, especially for the protection of civilian employees as well as military men?
  Finally, we on this side of the House wish to say that this is an obscene outrage and one which raises the most serious questions for law and order on this side of the Irish Channel.
  Mr. Maudling: I welcome very much what the hon. Lady has said. I am afraid that I cannot give any more details at the moment. It happened only a very short time ago. All investigations are being pursued as rapidly as possible. I saw the report on the tape. I have no doubt that this is one of the leads that the police will be following.
  Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at this stage the House can do little else but register its sense of horror and express its sympathy to the dependants of those who have lost their lives and those who are injured? While we have yet to establish the source of this outrage, if the intention of those who perpetrated this ghastly act was to achieve any political result surely the moral is that nothing is less likely to achieve a peaceful solution than tactics of this sort?
  Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Critchley: The whole House will share the feeling of anger and sorrow at this wanton act of murder, in which seven of my constituents have died, five of them women, and 13 have been injured. Has my right hon. Friend seen a claim that the Official I.R.A. has said that it was responsible? Will he please assure us that he will spare no effort to apprehend those responsible for this foul outrage?
  Mr. Maudling: All the resources of the law in this country are already engaged in trapping the miscreants.
  Mr. Concannon: On behalf of all right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House and, of course, all members of the Labour Party, may I register my disgust and anger at this senseless outrage? Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs.
  1104
  Shirley Williams), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any security plans have been made for infantry barracks in this country, in view of the fact that, following what has been termed "Bloody Sunday", threats were made by certain people that this kind of action would take place? Have any security precautions been taken in these barracks, especially with regard to the protection of married quarters?
  Mr. Maudling: We were well aware of the threats made about outrages of this kind. I do not think I should go further into these matters at this stage.

  HEALTH SERVICE COMMISSIONER
  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 about the appointment of a Health Service Commissioner.
  The Government have decided that there should be a Health Service Commissioner as part of the arrangements for dealing with complaints in the National Health Service. Although the great majority of complaints are satisfactorily dealt with by health authorities, there are some that the citizen should be able to refer to an entirely independent person if he remains dissatisfied with the action taken by the Health Service authority. A commissioner would serve this independent function and would reinforce the rights of those who use the Health Service, without detracting from the responsibilities of the Health Service authorities or reflecting on the value of the work done by the staff of the service.
  There will be a Health Service Commissioner for England, one for Wales and one for Scotland, but, initially at least, the three posts will be held by the same person. This is an important expansion of the machinery for the independent investigation of complaints for which the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration represents a proven precedent. It would be premature for the commissioner to be designated now. The Government think, however, that the work of the Health Service Commissioner and of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration should be

  1105
  closely associated, and they recognise that there are strong arguments for considering whether these posts should all be held by the same person. Before reaching a decision on this, the views of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration will be sought. Appointment of the commissioner will be by Her Majesty by Letters Patent. In this and in his tenure of office, he will follow the precedent set by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and will enjoy the same degree of independence in carrying out his functions. The Health Service authorities will continue to be responsible for investigating complaints made to them, as part of their general management responsibilities. The commissioner will consider only those complaints made by or on behalf of patients which have already been made to the responsible authorities and not been resolved to the complainant's satisfaction. Complainants, or those acting for them, will in all cases deal directly with the commissioner.
  The commissioner will be responsible for investigating actions taken by or on behalf of the Health Service authorities where it is claimed that an individual person has suffered injustice or hardship through maladministration, or through a failure to provide necessary treatment and care. He will not, however, deal with complaints from staff about their pay and conditions of service, or with complaints concerning contracts or other commercial transactions. Nor will he investigate the actions of general medical and dental practitioners, pharmacists, ophthalmic medical practitioners and opticians, all of whom are not employees of the Health Service but are in contract with it. A statutory procedure already exists for examining complaints against them, and this will continue, without the involvement of the commissioner. In Scotland the commissioner will not deal with complaints falling within the jurisdiction of the Mental Welfare Commission.
  Together with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, I have had thorough and constructive discussions with representatives of the medical profession about complaints bearing on the relationship between clinicians and patients. We have decided that the commissioner
  1106
  should be precluded from investigating any action taken in the course of diagnosis, treatment or clinical care of an individual patient which, in the commissioner's opinion, was taken solely in the exercise of clinical judgment.
  In cases coming within his jurisdiction, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration does not look into complaints when the complainant has or had a right of appeal to a tribunal or a remedy by way of proceedings in a court of law, unless he is satisfied that in the particular circumstances of the case it is unreasonable to expect the complainant to resort or have resorted to it. The Health Service Commissioner will follow the same practice I would expect that he would need to use his discretion to investigate this type of case only on rare occasions.
  The procedure under which the Commissioner will conduct investigations will be similar to that observed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. He will be required to send a report of the results of investigations to the complainant, to any person complained against and to the responsible health authorities. He will make an annual report, and may make special reports, to the Secretary of State, who will be required to lay them before both Houses of Parliament.
  Legislation will be required to enable the Health Service Commissioner to be appointed.
  Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we would wish to congratulate him on his realisation, following the publication of the Payne Committee's Report and the succession of reports that we have had on the scandals in our long-stay mental hospitals, that the establishment of an independent investigator external to the Health Service is imperative? Is he further aware that it would be tragic if we were now to throw away the opportunity to create a really effective form of external investigation? Although his statement is so long and detailed that it is impossible for us clearly to understand all its implications, does he appreciate that at first hearing it seems to have some disappointing and even alarming elements?
  May I ask three questions? When the right hon. Gentleman says that a complaint must be made to the responsible

  1107
  authority in the first place, is he not aware that if the complaints have first to be made by patients, relatives or nurses to the responsible authority, then, as the Payne Report, the Farleigh Report and the others have shown, many complaints will never be made, because patients are in many cases helpless and nurses go in fear of victimisation if they make a complaint? Is it not essential in view of the exceptional circumstances in the hospital service for there to be a right of direct access to the commissioner in the first place, formally or informally? Can we have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that this will be possible, because otherwise we shall not avoid the sort of situation raised in recent reports?
  Secondly, may I suggest that in view of these exceptional circumstances it would not be right to merge the posts of Health Service Commissioner and Parliamentary Commissioner? Thirdly, could the right hon. Gentleman elaborate on the rather obscure reference to the rights of investigation into complaints on the relationship between clinicians and patients? Can he give the House an assurance that there will be no limitation on the discretion of the commissioner to take up any complaint?
  Finally, will he give an assurance that in view of the importance and complexity of this matter we can have a debate in the House before any final form of investigation is decided upon?
  Sir K. Joseph: The question of a debate in the House will be met by the needs of the legislation required to bring about this commissioner. It is sensible that complaints should continue to be made first to the Health Service Authority, where in most cases they will be put right. In answer to the right hon. Lady's question, the knowledge by the Health Service authority that patients, their relatives or nurses will have access to the Health Service Commissioner if a complaint is either suppressed or not properly dealt with will surely remove any danger about suppression of complaints. No decision has yet been made on whether the post will be held separately or by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and I am consulting the Select Committee about this. We decided after discussion with the doctors that it
  1108
  would be intolerable for them to face a multiplicity of complaint procedures. They are already subject to procedures on clinical matters through the courts and the General Medical Council, as well as the perfectly satisfactory complaints procedure for family practitioners, opticians and chemists.
  Sir R. Turton: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on announcing a long-overdue reform, may I ask him to explain the position that Members of Parliament would be in with this commissioner? It would appear that the channel is not to be, as it was with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, through the Member of Parliament alone. How will he avoid the duplication of an hon. Member taking the matter up with a Minister at the same time as his constituent is taking the matter up with the Health Service Commissioner?
  Sir K. Joseph: I hope that the House will recognise the difference between the two functions. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is part of Parliament's supervision of the performance of Government Departments. The Health Service Commissioner is intended to be part of the fabric of the Health Service. I expect, although this will be subject to discussion during the passage of the legislation, that Members of Parliament faced with complaints suitable for the Health Service Commissioner would be wise to ask whether their constituent has first and foremost put the complaint to the Health Service Authority. If that has been done and the constituent is dissatisfied, he could then recommend him to go to the Health Service Commissioner.
  Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that we on this bench warmly welcome his statement as something for which we have been pressing for some time? Will he also accept that we share the hesitation that has been expressed about his exclusion of medical practitioners and others from the scope of the commissioner's duties? When he talks about complaints on behalf of patients, does this include the possibility of a complaint by relatives of a deceased patient, not necessarily on behalf of the patient? Lastly, would he reflect that

  1109
  it is probably undesirable to combine this job with that of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration precisely because of the difference that he has outlined?
  Sir K. Joseph: We will certainly take that last point into account. I dealt with the hon. Gentleman's first point earlier. The answer to his second point about representations by relatives on behalf of a deceased patient is "Yes".
  Mr. Brian Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I warmly welcome the step that he has taken? Could he use this as an opportunity to make clear the liabilities of management committees following investigation of these complaints?
  Sir K. Joseph: Management committees that come under the criticism of Health Service Commissioner will no doubt respond as do any others to criticism, by trying to put right that which has been criticised unless they feel there is nothing more to be done. The sanction here is public criticism of a public body.
  Mr. Michael Stewart: While warmly congratulating the Secretary of State on this step, may I ask him two questions? First, would he accept that, although the proposed restrictions on the proposed commissioner's powers may be necessary at present, this House ought not to accept them as permanent and we must judge in the light of experience whether it might not be right to give the commissioner wider powers? Secondly, what would be the relationship between the proposed commissioner and the Select Committee of this House to which the present ombudsman reports?
  Sir K. Joseph: I shall need to consider the last point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. As to his first question, the House will always want to be very careful to avoid multiplying the ways in which any individual can be subject to process. What we are excluding at the moment are those cases where anyone in the Health Service is subject to legal procedure or is already subject as a clinician to quite separate, existing sanctions. The House will always be careful to maintain that principle.
  Sir B. Rhys Williams: May I thank my right hon. Friend most warmly for
  1110
  his statement and express the hope that it will soon be followed by the necessary legislation? May I ask him to give consideration to the need for the commissioner to have jurisdiction to investigate complaints against institutions supported by local authorities?
  Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced only a few weeks ago that there is to be an ombudsman in connection with local government. That is the answer to my hon. Friend's question.
  Mr. Conlan: While congratulating the Secretary of State, may I ask him two questions'? First will the commissioner be able to investigate complaints about the unequal distribution of consultants from area to area'? Secondly, will he be able to look into questions of the unfair and unequal distribution of financial resources within the regional authority areas and between district and district?
  Sir K. Joseph: Yes, so far as these do not trench upon clinical decisions. The Health Service Commissioner may often have to reflect on the management use of resources made available to the service.
  Dr. Stuttaford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we wish to congratulate him very much on the announcement he has made, but does he realise that there is always a need for speed in investigating medical complaints because the staff of hospitals move from one hospital to another very quickly'? Will he reconsider his decision not to allow direct access to the commissioner by Members of Parliament?
  Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that direct access by Members of Parliament—which surely would be indirect action concerning a patient—would speed the process at all. The complaint would go to the Health Service authority, and if the complainant were still unsatisfied he would have direct access to the commissioner.
  Mr. Ellis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people feel that the only part of the tripartite services where there is an element of consumer sovereignty is the part administered by the local health authority? Will he take a leaf out of the book of the previous Administration and ensure that area health authorities will

  1111
  have influence as representatives of the local authority?
  Sir K. Joseph: That is a separate question, as I think the hon. Member knows.
  Mr. Kinsey: Can my right hon. Friend tell us when this proposal will come into being as some cases pending consideration by the ombudsman are on medical matters which should be dealt with?
  Sir K. Joseph: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend guidance on that. This will not be done in time to deal with existing complaints.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: What staff has the right hon. Gentleman in mind for the new commissioner?
  Sir K. Joseph: I cannot tell the hon. Member that yet.
  Mr. Boscawen: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this procedure of appeal to an ombudsman will replace right of appeal to the Medical Services Tribunal? If not, cases will take a very long time before they are finally heard by the ombudsman.
  Sir K. Joseph: I should like to look deeper into that question, but I think that the answer is "no"; it is a parallel process and does not affect the Medical Services Tribunal. I will write to my hon. Friend.
  Dr. Miller: While welcoming the proposed appointment and congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on it, may I say that I think there will be considerable weakening of the authority of the commissioner if he does not have the ability or the right to investigate clinical complaints? I can appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's unwillingness to interfere in this sphere, but is he not aware that there are two spheres in which there could be cause for complaint by patients? The first is in the procedure of performing operations which prove either to have been unnecessary or to have been wrong operations. That is in the medical field. In the dental field there is the situation in which thousands of people are walking about this country with plastic monuments to the gross inefficiency of the dental profession because they have had teeth removed which need
  1112
  not have been removed. Will the right hon. Gentleman again consider making it possible in the terms of reference of the commissioner for a direct complaint to be made in these fields?
  Sir K. Joseph: I think the hon. Gentleman would find himself in a very small minority among the professions in taking the line he has taken. The House must remember that clinical judgments are already open to challenge by hospital authorities, the General Medical Council and the courts, and complainants already have recourse to them. We do not think we should add the commissioner. In any case, there should be a limit to the number of investigating bodies.
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an indication of when he expects to introduce the necessary legislation and whether the commissioner can investigate complaints due to lack of co-ordination between hospital services, the hospital welfare services, and so on?
  Sir K. Joseph: I cannot give an answer about the time when legislation will be introduced. The second question was a very good one. This will depend on the relationship as defined between the Health Service Commissioner and local ombudsmen as announced by the Prime Miniser.
  Mr. Ross: Of course we are interested in this proposal, but some aspects are rather vague and rather limiting. The right hon. Gentleman said that there would be three commissioners—one for Scottish, one for Welsh, and one for English complaints—but that initially this appointment is to be held by one man. [An HON. MEMBER "A Scotsman."] Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how long this initial period is to last and what is the intention in future? Does he think that someone looking into the Scottish Health Service should report to an English Secretary of State?
  Sir K. Joseph: The reports will be made separately to the Secretaries of State. If I had described the whole of this process I would have had to make a longer statement, and that I do not think the House would want. The Commissioner will report separately to the Secretary of State concerned.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Parker—
  Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State made an announcement as to future debates.
  Without touching on the substance of his statement at all, may I submit that in view of the many concerns expressed about the scope of the new appointment it would be wise for the Government to allow a debate to take place before they put the legislation into final draft? Otherwise when they bring the legislation forward they will be committed as a Government. May I urge through you that the Government should allow a debate on this proposal before the legislation is drafted?
  Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State did not say that the Parliamentary Commissioner has a jurisdiction over the hospital service and directly in the case of some hospitals in respect of which any complaint has gone so far as to reach his Department. There is some need for clarification.
  Mr. Speaker: These are not matters of order, but may be matters for discussion at the time when the Bill is introduced, or before. This is not a matter for me.
  Mrs. Castle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You rather suddenly called my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), who is to introduce the next business. This matter has been rather left in the air, first, as to when we can expect the legislation, and, secondly, as to when we can have another opportunity to clarify a whole number of unsatisfactory points. If we could have an answer on the two questions—the possibility of a debate and the time of the legislation—that would help the whole House.
  Sir Harmer Nicholls: Is not this one of those matters which God made the usual channels to deal with?
  Mr. Speaker: It is obvious that these are matters for discussion. The Leader of the House has been present and has heard most of this discussion. These are not matters of order. The point has been made in an alleged point of order, and there it must rest.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that I gave you notice that I had a point of order on Questions and I thought that this was the appropriate time to raise it.
  Mr. Speaker: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. He is quite right.
  Mr. Lewis: I gave you notice, Mr. Speaker—perhaps not adequate notice—that I wanted to raise a point of order about the Notices of Questions and Motions yesterday, No. 62, with particular reference to page 4025. I tabled 18 similar Questions asking about the sinecures which 18 Peers of the Realm hold in another place.
  Each of these 18 Questions, which were all accepted, referred at the end to the £8·50 "tax-free expense allowance". Strangely, in each Question the Table Office has left out the word "tax-free".
  My Questions were based on the fact that the allowance is tax-free, and drew attention to the fact. The Table is, of course, entitled to put a Question in order, but surely not to leave out the most important part, which is based on fact.
  This might have been a typographical error in only one Question, but I suggest that the Table is not entitled to delete from a Question something for which the hon. Member concerned takes responsibility, particularly when, as in this case, it is a statement of fact.
  Mr. Speaker: I will certainly go into this matter and will deal with it either publicly, or privately, as seems to me correct.

INLAND WATERWAYS (IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION)
4.1 p.m.
Mr. John Parker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a central authority with powers to control navigation on all inland waterways in England and Wales.
The Department of the Environment has stated that it will adopt a policy based on a recent report to create regional group water authorities. It will replace 1,400 water supply and sewerage organisations with 10 by 1974. These water authorities are to be based on the catchment areas of the rivers. Most hon. Members will agree, I think, that this overhaul of our water supply and sewerage arrangements is long overdue and they will welcome the idea. All these new regional catchment area water authorities are to be under a National Water Council under the Minister.
The Department is, however, proposing to abolish the British Waterways Board and to divide the canals between seven regions, some of which have few or no canals. There is need for a national water authority to control all inland navigation, not only on the canals, as in the past, but on the rivers as well. If we are to modernise the amenity and transport purposes of our waterways, such a body is essential. It should be responsible directly to the Secretary of State. Its chairman should be a member of the National Water Council, and it should control all navigation activities of the regional boards.
Why is such a body necessary? First, through navigation needs to be controlled centrally. Canals are not limited by watersheds. Through routes run from one river basin to another. They are fed on one side of a tunnel by reservoirs on the other side and there are tunnels between watersheds. Unitary organisation of waterways is necessary from the point of view of navigation. What is true of canals is also true of river navigation.
It would be necessary to have all-in licences for boats. Some people seem to think that boating happens only over a small, limited area. People who want to boat on a week's or a fortnight's holiday want to travel extensively along canals or rivers, from one part of the country to another, and they want to
1116
find uniform conditions wherever they go.
At present, the canals are supported partly by income from the sale of water and so on and partly by the hiring out of warehouses and other facilities. But there is a grant of about £2 million from the central Government. What will happen to the financing of navigation in future? Is this grant to be abolished? It appears from statements which have been made that grants are expected to come from local sports council or from the people who use the canals. Without some substantial Government grant, the whole system built up or brought back into being in the last few years will collapse.
The main interest of any reasonable water authority must be the supply of water and sewerage. Navigation is bound to be low on its list of priorities. One cannot expect the users of waterways at present to find any very large revenue towards improving waterways or keeping them going.
On the Broads, there are no locks t be maintained. There has been a steady increase in the number of people using the Broads. Licence fees have brought in a bigger and bigger revenue and a great deal of money has been spent to improve the Broads, to deepen some channels and to open up others which have become silted. But this has happened only because there has been a growth of usage of the Broads and because various facilities have been provided to make it possible. One cannot expect usage to develop without facilities being provided—and that can be done adequately only if the Government are prepared to put up a considerable amount of money.
The Government's present proposals to abolish the British Waterways Board are having an unfortunate effect. Investment in trying to develop traffic on the waterways has dropped. Many local authorities have come forward with grants for canals in recent years and many canals are in the process of renovation as a result. This development, and the commercial development of our waterways, seem likely to stop.
The Waterways Board has got agreement for a scheme for deepening the South Yorkshire Canal and opening up that area, and also for putting a container station at Winsford in Cheshire.

1117
It also has proposals for widening and deepening the Grand Union Canal up to Watford, where there will also be a container station. All these proposals are likely to be at risk unless a centralised water authority is kept in being.
The Water Amenities Advisory Council has done a great deal towards a survey of the remainder waterways and has made recommendations about which should be restored, which should be scrapped and whether some should be confined to angling and so on. All this work will have been in vain if the policy of opening up our waterways is not continued.
The Government do surprising things. They have given a grant to the Upper Avon Trust to bring that waterway back into use. Why not have a general policy on this matter instead of limited grants for particular purposes?
There is an important future for our waterways in leisure use. Many young people intensely enjoy mucking about in boats, whether canoes, sailing boats, motor cruisers or whatever it may be; and we need to develop all these waterways to best advantage in the near future if they are to be there in the years to come, because at present many waterways are on the point of disappearing.
This is the critical moment when we need to take action to retain and develop our waterways. This is the time at which
1118
it is necessary for the Government to give a lead in this matter. Personally, I feel very strongly that by the ending of the British Waterways Board and by the refusal to set up a central authority to control and develop navigation on our waterways, great harm is being done to their future and to the future use of our waterways both for commercial purposes and for recreation.
I trust that the Government will think again on this matter and that this House will support this Bill, which has the backing of all the amenity authorities in the country who are interested in the future of our waterways and their enjoyment by the coming generation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Denis Howell, Mrs. Lena Jeger, Mr. Nigel Spearing, Sir Geoffrey de Freitas, Mr. Peter Hardy and Mr. John Parker.

INLAND WATERWAYS (IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION)
  INLAND WATERWAYS (IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION)
  Bill to establish a central authority with powers to control navigation on all inland waterways in England and Wales, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 25th February, and to be printed. [Bill 86.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL ADVISORY SERVICE BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL ADVISORY SERVICE BILL
    Clause 1

      ESTABLISHMENT, ORGANISATION AND FUNCTIONS OF EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL ADVISORY SERVICE
      4.12 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 3, at end insert:
      'but no particulars or information about any person which may be furnished to an adviser in pursuance of this subsection shall (without the consent of that person) be disclosed by the adviser otherwise than for the efficient performance of his functions'.
      The effect of this Amendment is to limit disclosure by the employment medical adviser of information about young persons obtained from the school health service. It arises directly from the discussion we had in Standing Committee when, as those who were members of that Committee will remember, two Amendments were put forward from the Opposition Benches to Clause 1(6), which is concerned with the duty of the local education authority to give employment medical advisers particulars of their young persons' school record for which the employment medical adviser asks. One of these Amendments from the other side proposed that the word "reasonably" should be inserted in subsection (6) to make clear that information for which the medical adviser could ask was to be limited to that which he might reasonably require for the efficient performance of his functions. I was very happy to be able to accept that Amendment, and it is now incorporated in the Bill.
      The other Amendment which was proposed from the Opposition Benches was more difficult. This was the proposition which came from the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), whom I am very pleased to see in his place, that this information should be given in con
      1120
      fidence to the employment medical adviser. Perhaps I might quote what the hon. Gentleman said in his very reasonable speech on that occasion:
      "I think that a lair amount of information about a person's medical state should be made available to responsible people but what worries me is that it seems to be an open-ended commitment, that no limitation is being imposed upon how far down the line the information about a person's medical history shall be given."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 27th January, 1972 c 177]
      I explained on that occasion that, while I appreciated the reasoning behind the Amendment, I had real difficulty in accepting it as it stood because the use of the phrase "in confidence" might well mean that employment medical advisers were debarred in certain circumstances from consulting even their own medical colleagues when they wished to do so; and I am sure that it is not the wish of any hon. Member on either side that that should be so. But I promised the hon. Member that I would look at it with my experts to see whether some suitable form of words could be achieved to suggest the spirit of what the hon. Member intended.
      We have now come forward with this Amendment. Its effect is that the medical adviser may disclose information obtained from the school health service only for the purpose of enabling him to perform his functions efficiently. In the unlikely event—and I stress the word "unlikely"—of his requiring to disclose it for any other purpose he must obtain the consent of the person concerned. I hope the House will feel I have been able to meet the feeling which was expressed in the Committee at the time of the previous discussion. Although I was advised that the previous drafting of the Bill was quite sufficient we wished to make it absolutely clear and to go along with the hon. Member and his hon. Friends in stressing that point; and I feel perhaps we have now done this in this Amendment.
      4.15 p.m.
      Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I really welcome this. We put down what was really a probing Amendment, and we are most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for improving it in such a way that it is, I believe, acceptable to all of us. On physical health, people do not mind

      1121
      admitting that they have certain limitations, but if there are emotional strains or psychological or mental factors in their make-up they are all very concerned and do not want people to know since that might jeopardise future employment prospects. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has found a formula which covers this, and I congratulate him on the wording of his new Amendment and thank him for it.
      Dr. Alan Glyn: I would like briefly to congratulate my hon. Friend on dealing with what might have seemed in Committee a rather unimportant point. I can assure him that it is important that as far as is humanly possible the confidence between a medical man and his patient is maintained, except in so far as is necessary under this Bill. I very much welcome the change of wording to which my hon. Friend has kindly agreed.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I am happy to add my own expression of grateful appreciation for the extent to which the hon. Gentleman has met what was obviously the very persuasive argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). The form of words that is now proposed to be put in the Bill is a very reasonable compromise, and we are grateful.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 26, at end add:
      'and the reference to those (other than the Secretary of State) concerned with the health of employed persons and of persons training for employment shall be taken to include oganisations of employers or employed persons and associations of such organisations'.
      Throughout the Committee stages we endeavoured to be as conciliatory and helpful as possible, and I believe there was general agreement on both sides that this is a worthwhile and necessary Bill; therefore, it had general support.
      I was asked to look particularly at the matter which is now dealt with by this Amendment, which makes clear that the bodies to be informed and advised by the employment medical advisory service on the health of employed persons include organisations with employees or employed persons and associations of such organisations. When we discussed this in Standing Committee, the hon. Member
      1122
      for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) moved an Amendment to specify that trade unions and other organisations of workers should be bodies which would definitely be advised by the medical advisory service.
      I wish to make absolutely clear today that it is certainly our intention that organisations of employees, whether registered trade unions or not, and likewise organisations of employers should be able to obtain advice and information from the service. They are in this particular context, and there is no discrimination at all where these unions and organisations are concerned. This will be spelled out very clearly in the leaflets and booklets which we are to produce to give publicity to the new service when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.
      I do not think the Amendment proposed in Committee was necessary because organisations of employees are quite clearly among the others concerned with health of employed persons referred to in Clause 1(1). But hon. Members opposite pressed the point very strongly, as they were entitled to do, and stressed the rôle of the trade unions in this matter, and it was a point appreciated by both sides of the Committee during the debate.
      The result is this Amendment, which I commend to the House. Its effect is similar to that of the Amendment tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Consett, with the addition of the reference to organisations of employers and associations of employers' organisations. It makes no distinction between registered trade unions and other organisations of employees, just as the service itself makes no distinction.
      I do not think there is any strict legal necessity for the Amendment, but it is right for me to acknowledge the efforts made by trade unions and employers' organisations over the years to promote better working conditions and safeguard the health of their members. A great deal of the work which goes on is unsung, but anyone who has been involved in either or both sides of industry will know of it. We regard this as one of the most important aspects of the legislation, and I hope, bearing in mind the comments which have been made, that the House will incorporate the Amendment so that there is no dubiety that trade unions and organisations of workers are included.
      Mr. Harold Walker: As the Under-Secretary has said, a similar Amendment was moved in Committee by my hon Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins), who is elsewhere in the House today and cannot be with us. He has asked me to express on his behalf how much he appreciates the Under-Secretary of State's ready response to the persuasive argument deployed by him in Committee.
      The Amendment was pressed upon the Under-Secretary by almost all hon. Members on the Opposition side of the Committee. I should like to comment on the circumstances which made it necessary for us to press for this Amendment with so much vigour. One of the consequences of the Industrial Relations Act, which I am sure will be referred to again and again in the weeks, months and years to come, is the twilight world that unregistered trade unions will find themselves in in terms of their rights under the law. It was necessary for us to ask not only that it should be placed beyond doubt that trade unions had a right to the information that the employment medical advisory service might make available, but also that this information should be equally available to organisations of workers who apparently will have a very doubtful legal status in the future.
      I regret that the Under-Secretary of State did not choose the simpler form of words we put to him. He will recall that one of our arguments was that the Bill was unnecessarily abstruse and confusing in some aspects, and we all agree on the need for simplicity in legislation. What we asked him to do was merely to insert—
      Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Gentleman, having been in office, will know the complications which Ministers always face. Although I was attracted by the hon. Gentleman's original Amendment, I have been advised that the Amendment now before the House is more comprehensive, and this is what we are trying to achieve in the interests of all work-people.
      Mr. Walker: I take the hon. Gentleman's word for it, but I sometimes wonder whether we tend to treat parlia
      1124
      mentary draftsmen as witch doctors who apply some particular magic that we should not question. The form of words which we proposed achieved the same objective more simply.
      I am glad to accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance on the form of words now put forward, and equally glad to accept his assurance that the informative booklet which the Department intends to publish when the Bill is enacted will repeat the assurances he has given today and put beyond any doubt that organisations of workers which are unregistered trade unions will have an equal right to the information that is available through the employment medical advisory service
      I appreciate the tribute paid by the Under-Secretary of State to the rôle played by the trade unions in promoting the health and safety of workers in industry and services generally. We pointed this out in Committee, and I am glad to hear the Under-Secretary of State echoing our words this afternoon.
      Having expressed my caveat about the form of words, may I, speaking not only for my hon. Friend the Member for Consett but for this side of the House, express our appreciation of the way in which the Under-Secretary of State has once again responded constructively and helpfully to the arguments which we put in Committee?
      Mr. Carter-Jones: I welcome the remarks made by the Under-Secretary of State about the work done by the trade unions. My union, the Transport and General Workers' Union, has done a tremendous amount of work on the safety of employees. We pride ourselves on the amount of work we do to recover money for people who have been injured. This is known as blood money, but we are not so concerned about collecting blood money as we are about ensuring the safety of our workers.
      It sometimes happens that a rare case, especially where there is disablement, can be identified. I realise that the hon. Gentleman cannot legislate against this, but I should like it to appear on the official record that where information is passed through which

      1125
      enables anyone to be identified that information will be used with very great care.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said and see that it is looked at very closely.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 26, at end add—
      (10) Where an employment medical adviser is obstructed in the execution of his powers or his duties the person obstructing him shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £500, and where an employment medical adviser is so obstructed in a factory the occupier of that factory shall be guilty of an offence.
      Mr. Speaker: It will be for the convenience of the House to take also Amendment No. 4, in Schedule 1, page 8, line 32, leave out paragraph 4.
      Mr. Walker: It is right that we should take the two Amendments together, because Amendment No. 4 is consequential upon Amendment No. 3. I should not like it to be assumed that because these two Amendments are the only ones we have tabled we are otherwise entirely satisfied with the Bill. There are a number of minor points on which we have reservations. We expressed these reservations fairly fully in Committee and have no wish to delay the progress of this modest but useful Bill.
      The issue involved in this Amendment is a matter of substance and importance. It echoes not only our debate in Committee but a point to which I have made repeated references in the House during the last 12 months. Not only is the maximum penalty provided in the Bill for obstruction of the employment medical adviser too low, but the general level of penalties in the broad area of industrial health and safety matters is far too low.
      The penalty provided in the Bill is derived directly from the Factories Act penalty for obstruction of the work of the factory inspector. The employment medical adviser will in future be the person who is at present called the medical factory inspector. It is impossible to avoid reference to the Factories Act because the penalty is in Schedule 1
      1126
      of the Bill which itself is largely a reproduction of Sections 146 and 147 of the Factories Act. The Schedule defines the powers of the employment medical adviser and the penalty for obstruction.
      In Committee we argued that the maximum penalty should be not £20 but £50. That figure was chosen primarily to take into account the inflation which has taken place since the penalty was originally determined in the 1961 Consolidation Act. So far as I can check back, it was £5 in 1937, and my assessment of inflation since then is a very moderate one, particularly in view of the roaring inflation during the past 18 months.
      In Standing Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) said that I was being far too moderate and went on to present powerfully convincing arguments for the ceiling being £500. That is what we are talking about here, not the level of penalty that ought to be opposed in specific and particular cases, but the ceiling. As regards specific cases, quite clearly that is for the discretion of the courts, but the present ceiling of £20 is a derisory, even a contemptible, figure, like the other penalties in the Factories Act.
      4.30 p.m.
      The maximum penalty of £300 provided for in the Factories Act leads to a tendency, as I said in Standing Committee, for the prosecution not of major employers, for whom not only £20 or £50 but £300 and even £500 is a derisory figure and, therefore, of little significance. Therefore the Factories Act has a built-in tendency to encourage instead the prosecution of small employers. The factory inspector or, as it will be in the future in this particular area of industrial health and welfare, the employment medical adviser, may find himself compelled to reason, as I have heard argued in the past when it seemed there was scope for a prosecution, what is the point of prosecuting, what is the point of spending time on a lengthy period of preparation and a lengthy period in court, what is the point of taking up the time of the court, when the maximum penalty that can be imposed is one of little consequence to the employer or the occupier of the premises? That argument tends to lose its validity the lower down the scale we go. The smaller the employer,

      1127
      the smaller the turnover and the capital, the more impact the penalty will have, and the adviser may find himself compelled to say "In this particular case it will be useful. Therefore, I will have recourse to the court". Leaving the penalty as it is, therefore, merely encourages prosecutions against the small employer, for whom the sum involved may have significance, rather than against the larger occupiers or employers.
      I am not necessarily arguing that prosecution ought to be the automatic recourse for the adviser or inspector. It has been a long-established practice that factory inspectors and the Factory Inspectorate seek to persuade people to do good rather than punish them for doing bad. By and large, that has been a good rule, but undoubtedly there have been cases where prosecutions ought to have been instituted but have not, merely because the penalty was so derisory and insignificant that the factory inspector saw little point in pursuing that course.
      Dr. Glyn: I understand the hon. Member's argument, in which he is really pointing out that it is only the small companies that are going to be penalised, but would he not agree that even if the penalty were made £1,000 it still would not catch the extremely big companies? It is terribly difficult to decide at exactly what point this particular penalty should be set.
      Mr. Walker: If we accept that argument we have to accept the invalidity of including in any Statute provision for a fine of any magnitude for either deterrent or punitive purposes. One cannot help comparing this with the level of fines provided for in the recent Industrial Relations Act, in which the maximum fine was graduated according to the assumed resources of the offending party. That, it seems to me, is the logic of the hon. Gentleman's intervention although it was not exactly what he was suggesting—that there should be a scale of fines appropriate to the resources of the miscreant. The Industrial Relations Act provides for the imposition of a fine as large as £100,000 for an offence committed by a massive trade union.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: In wholly different circumstances.
      Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman says "In wholly different circumstances"; but we are talking about the principle involved, and the principle is no different at all. Indeed, under the Industrial Relations Act for those bodies which are not registered trade unions or even for individuals the penalty can be open-ended and may well run into sums considerably in excess of the £100,000 to which I referred.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: We spent many hours debating this point in this Chamber—that as far as the Industrial Relations Act is concerned they are not fines but civil damages, whereas this is a question of prosecution for criminal offences in which, quite legitimately, there are fines imposed by a judicial court.
      Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman's euphemisms do not pacify any trade union leader in this country. Whether the hon. Gentleman calls them damages or not, the fact is that they are awards of compensation that will be made by a judicial body, the National Industrial Relations Court, and quite obviously they are intended to have a deterrent or a punitive effect. That is the purpose of a fine; so they will have precisely the same effect and purpose as a fine, and the use of different words does not blur the reality at all. Some of us are getting sick and tired of the Government's attempts to mask the reality of what they impose on the trade union movement by the use of euphemisms: unfair trade practices for what are clearly breaches of the law; awards of compensation for what are quite clearly fines; orders for what are quite clearly diktats. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench so that he can listen to what I am saying. I thought he would have heard enough of the truth from this side of the House on this issue, but if he wants more we can give him it.
      I have contrasted the pitiful, derisory, contemptible, insignificant level of the maximum fines provided for in this Bill with what the right hon. Gentleman is providing for in his Industrial Relations Act. But, turning from that, compare it, for example, with another area—-the criminal law. For shooting a single pheasant in Norfolk a magistrate imposed a fine of £75. I should like the hon. Gentleman to mull that over and contrast it with what he is providing here. The

      1129
      employment medical advisory service will be dealing with situations such as that at Avonmouth, and there are other similar situations in industry in which the employment medical advisory service will have a rôle to play in the future, when it may be of crucial importance to the lives of people engaged in industry that the service is not obstructed in any way in the performance of its duties and where an employer will not be deterred by a fine of £20. I ask the hon. Gentleman to mull that over in his mind.
      In our view too low a penalty would detract also from the prestige and authority which we believe the Act and the new service should have and which ought indeed to be attached to the Factories Act and the factory inspectorate.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Having listened to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) for the last 10 minutes, I feel that he was making a valiant effort on a case which he really did not take terribly seriously himself. It was probably just bubble and squcak. There is something to be said for a review of the fines that are imposed through the Factories Act. If this Bill is to be kept in line with the provisions of the Factories Act, then this legislation should contain the same penalties as those in that Act. If we are to review the fines, then they should be reviewed in both pieces of legislation. It is another matter as to whether this will be done in due course by the Government, and the situation needs to be examined.
      I do not see how medical officers will be restrained in carrying out their jobs, as seems to be assumed in the Amendment. I served for some time on the management committee of a hospital board, I was chairman of the establishment committee, and therefore had a good deal of contact with the medical staff in the hospital. I can assure the hon. Member for Doncaster that there is a no more independent body of men than medical officers, whether they be in hospitals, private practice or factories. I cannot imagine medical officers who work in industry to be any less independent than they are outside. If there is one occasion when laymen find it difficult to argue it is when they are opposed by a group of medical officers. One cannot argue too strongly when faced by those who are
      1130
      so expert in their own subject. Therefore, if a medical officer felt particularly strongly about something which was happening in the works, it would be unlikely that even the managing director would be able to exert his will against the medical officer's own view.
      Mr. Carter-Jones: We are talking not about medical officers of health, but about the employment medical advisory service trying to obtain access to private property. It must be remembered that that service will not have the same rights as local medical officers of health.
      Mr. Lewis: I accept that, but the Amendment is being argued on the ground that it strengthens the powers of medical staff engaged in the industrial service. The point is that the fine procedure is a long-stop and will be unlikely to be required in any event. I am saying that the influence of the medical personnel will be greater than the influence of those who may in some way seek to restrain them.
      Any responsible company will accept that there is a certain odium attached to a fine. The last thing a firm would wish to do is to find itself in court charged with interfering with medical advice. Furthermore, any such firm may well find itself having to pay the costs in any proceedings. It is making heavy weather of the matter to suggest that the smallness of the fine would not be a sufficient form of restraint.
      4.45 p.m.
      Mr. Carter-Jones: I agree in part with the remarks of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis). However, he knows full well that there are many gentlemen in the City who day after day park their cars and daily pay £1 or £2 in fines for the privilege of doing so, and think that it is cheap at the price. There is no publicity and their offence is never made public. Personally, I should have liked to see another nought added to the fine in the Amendment so as to make it £5,000. However, I think the figure of £500 is not unreasonable, and it is not a small amount. If a factory owner or managing director attempts to keep out an employment medical adviser, then the fact that he has to pay a fine of £500 is likely to attract attention. It will not break

      1131
      him, but he will be conscious of the need to keep his good name.
      I hope that the Minister will have a death-bed repentance on this Amendment. I trust he recognises that this is a fair Amendment and will advise the Committee to accept it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reasonable.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I always endeavour to be reasonable, as the House will know. Up until this moment of time our proceedings have been all sweetness and light, but I am afraid that we must part company over this Amendment, for reasons which I shall endeavour to advance in detail. I say at the outset that I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.
      There are three main reasons why the Amendment must be turned down. One is a legal reason; the other two are practical reasons. I appreciate what hon. Members opposite are trying to get at. I said in Committee that I had a certain amount of sympathy with them on this point, but there are particular reasons why this provision cannot be amended. This does not mean that the figure of £20 must prevail for all time and that there cannot be a revision at some future time.
      I wish to deal in some detail with the drafting point made by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker). I in no way wish to criticise the hon. Gentleman, but would only point out that his argument shows the deep waters into which one can plunge when dealing with drafting matters. There is an inability on the part of those who are not skilled Parliamentary draftsmen fully to follow through the consequences.
      In paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 in the Bill as drafted the penalty for obstructing a medical adviser is £20. That is the same penalty as that which currently obtains for obstructing a factory inspector; indeed, Schedule 1 reproduces part of Section 146 of the Factories Act. I explained in Committee that it was not possible then to accept any Amendment to increase the penalty because Schedule 1 is an extract from the Factories Act and the quoted text cannot be altered without making a nonsense of the rest of the text in the Factories Act. However, the hon. Gentleman seeks to delete paragraph (4) from the Schedule and to insert it as an
      1132
      entirely new subsection in Clause 1. At the same time he wishes to increase the penalty for obstruction from £20 to £500.
      My first ground for not accepting the Amendment is that it is legally defective. The first part of the Amendment says that
      "Where an employment medical adviser is obstructed in the execution of his powers or his duties the person obstructing him shall be guilty of an offence and be liable to a fine not exceeding £500 …"
      I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman says that that is the ceiling. Nevertheless, it is the stated total of £500, and the person referred to in that phrase could be either a worker or a factory occupier.
      The Amendment goes on:
      "and where an employment medical adviser is so obstructed in a factory the occupier of that factory shall be guilty of an offence".
      The Amendment does not lay down any penalty for the occupier of a factory in such circumstances. Therefore, the occupier of a factory would not be penalised for any obstruction in his factory unless he committed the offence.
      The Amendment, as drafted, would weaken the Bill. The reference to obstructing an employment medical adviser is contained in Section 146(4) of the Factories Act, 1961, as set out in Schedule 1. Clause 1(5) provides that the provisions of Schedule 1 are to have effect as if an employment medical adviser were a factory inspector, and the relevant provisions of Section 146 of the Factories Act will apply to him. That means that under Section 156 of the Factories Act an occupier of a factory would be liable to a fine of £60 for obstruction of an employment medical adviser. Indeed, it will be seen that it is fully quoted in Section 156.
      By removing that paragraph from the Schedule, so divorcing it from the other provisions of the Factories Act, the Opposition will relieve the occupier of any penalty for obstruction which is carried out in his factory. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that that is most undesirable, and a matter which they do not wish to achieve. I certainly support them in that view.
      There is a further difficulty. Schedule 1 also includes a quotation from Section 147 of the Factories Act which refers back to Section 146(4). If we delete

      1133
      Section 146(4) from Schedule 1, this reference will no longer have any relevance. Therefore, the Amendment is defective in its drafting and on that ground alone could not be accepted, even if I were predisposed to accept it as moved.
      I know what the Opposition are seeking to achieve. I do not wish to make a debating point out of it, because the waters of legal drafting are dark. However, I note the objective which is advanced by the Opposition.
      I oppose the Amendment on two other grounds. The related point is important because it approximates to the powers granted at present to factory inspectors. The duties of the factory inspector, related to those of the employment medical adviser, are reproduced in Schedule 1. The penalty for obstructing a factory inspector is £20. Hon. Members on Second Reading, in Committee and here today have many times said that the factory inspectors and the employment medical advisers will work closely together. Surely it would be anomalous and would create difficulties if they were obstructed in a factory and the penalty for obstructing the inspector was a mere £20 whereas the penalty for obstructing an employment medical adviser was £500. There would be enormous inequality leading to a great deal of difficulty.
      I remind the Opposition—again, I do not wish to make a debating point, but it is relevant—that in their similar Bill, when they were in Government, the provision in this respect was £20, not £500. Inflation has not escalated that much since right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were sitting on this side of the House.
      Mr. Harold Walker: Whenever I have referred to the inadequate level of penalties required by the Factories Act, I have never stopped reproaching myself for not pressing more vigorously that they should be raised. I concede that the hon. Gentleman has levelled a legitimate rebuke at me, but it cannot exceed the reproach which I feel on that score. If he believes that the one major obstacle to acceptance of the Amendment as it stands, or the principle which it embodies, is the difference between the maxima which would be obtainable for obstruction of an em
      1134
      ployment medical adviser and obstruction of a factory inspector under the Factories Act, I point out that there are powers within the Bill to amend the Factories Act. Indeed, the Bill amends the Factories Act. If, in another place, the hon. Gentleman wanted to bring the two into line, I can assure him that we would be more than happy to respond.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I cannot respond to the hon. Gentleman's invitation to amend the Factories Act. He brings me to my third point. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Robens Committee of Inquiry into Safety and Health at Work is reaching the fruition of its endeavours. Indeed, I expect that it will be considering the whole question of penalties in this sphere. The Committee may come forward with important recommendations covering the whole sphere of penalties in factories and over the whole range of health and safety at work. Surely it would be wrong to legislate piecemeal on this matter in advance of that Committee's report. Therefore, it is right that at this stage the penalties should be in line with those in the Factories Act. It may be that in due course the Factories Act will be amended and therefore this Bill will also be amended.
      The third objection to the Amendment is that the figure of £500, even though it is a maximum, is completely out of scale with some of the penalties being imposed for obstruction under Acts and Bills which have been and are before the House. In the Fire Precautions Act, 1971, the fine for obstructing an inspector is £50. In the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Bill, which is currently before before the House, the fine for obstructing a water bailiff is £100. In the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, now before the House, the fine for obstructing an inspector under the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, 1956, will be £100.
      I agree that these figures are in excess of £20, but, for the reasons which I have stated, it would be extremely difficult to make employment medical advisers out of line and out of step with factory inspectors. The fact that the whole of this sphere is being reviewed by the Robens Committee means that it would not be a helpful step for the House to accept the Amendment. Indeed, while agreeing that there may be a case in

      1135
      due course for increasing the penalty of £20, it is sensible to reproduce this part of the Factories Act as it is at this time. In those circumstances, again bearing in mind the defective drafting of the Amendment, we should not be wise to accept the Amendment.
      Mr. Carter-Jones: It may be that fisheries and such things are important. However, we are talking about environments in which people's health can be ruined. This is of far greater importance than any other example which the hon. Gentleman quoted. Will he please take this into account?
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I appreciate that point. I know full well the hon. Gentleman's sincere feelings on that point. He has spoken on it many times in the House. I generally agree with most of the points he makes. However, while it is true that we cannot equate the Bill with some of those Acts and Bills, there is a logical case for trying to keep in step penalties for the same type of offence across the board and not having one which shows a great disparity compared with the others. I would agree if this were the last word on the subject, but, as I have tried to explain, the Robens Report is imminent. Some important matters of substance may emerge from Robens, not only in this context, but in many others which we have discussed, and in consequence we shall have to take them into account.
      It would be wrong now to fix an arbitrary penalty outside the provisions of the Factories Act only to find in due course that we have to revise it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) said in his helpful intervention, it is not only a question always of a penalty; it is very important sometimes to take account of the publicity which results from events of this sort. The damage this can do to such undertakings is very relevant.
      I realise that hon. Members opposite are not satisfied on this point, and they may wish to return to it on a future occasion. We will look with the utmost seriousness at the recommendation which will come to us from the Robens Committee in connection with the Factories Act and allied Acts, if the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. In these circum
      1136
      stances, I must advise my hon. Friends to reject this Amendment.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. Harold Walker: With the leave of the House, may I say that I do not think I have ever heard such an unconvincing case nor seen a Minister shoot himself down so effectively as the Under-Secretary when, in quoting the analagous examples from recent Statutes, he gave four examples, one of which concerned the obstruction of a water bailiff in the execution of his duties for which a fine of £100 could be imposed. What an extraordinary contrast between, for example, the obstruction of someone who may have a statutory obligation to investigate a situation such as that at Avonmouth and the water bailiff seeking to perserve the trout of a well-heeled landlord or someone like that.
      I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures about the drafting of the Amendment. It is a long-standing convention of the House that while Ministers may well have to express criticism of the principle and the detailed form of drafting of an Amendment, they deal with its spirit.
      If the arguments that have been advanced in support of it are sufficiently cogent to commend themselves to the House, the Minister expresses his willingness to reconsider it and in subsequent stages to see whether he can accommodate the argument. The Under-Secretary has not shown any indication of willingness to do this. I do not want to delay the proceedings, and I shall not therefore ask my hon. Friends to go into the Lobby to support my Amendment.
      Once again, however, we have impressed upon the Under-Secretary—and I am glad his right hon. Friend was here to listen to my argument again—that we are very dissatisfied with the general level of penalties provided for offences concerning industrial health and safety. We hope that in making their recommendations Lord Robens and his Committee will take account of the observations which frequently and increasingly are being made in the House. I cannot withdraw my Amendment because it is a matter of principle.
      This might well be the last occasion on which we express a few words about this modest but very useful Measure. I

      1137
      hope the Bill will speedily reach the Statute Book. I offer my very bust wishes to the service and those who participate in what I am sure will be its very useful work in industrial health and welfare.
      Amendment negatived.
      Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time [Queens Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified].
      Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

      ESTABLISHMENT, ORGANISATION AND FUNCTIONS OF EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL ADVISORY SERVICE

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
  5.6 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move,
  That any Act of the present Session to make provision in connection with the enlargement of the European Communities to include the United Kingdom, together with (for certain purposes) the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, may include provision—

  (a) for giving effect to any charge to taxation of those Communities, and for the imposition and alteration of customs duties by order of the Treasury;

  (b) for the payment into the Consolidated Fund or National Loans Fund of sums received by any Minister of the Crown or government department.

  I understand it is convenient to debate with it the related Money Resolution:
  That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision in connection with the enlargement of the European Communities to include the United Kingdom, together with (for certain purposes) the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the charge on the Consolidated Fund or National Loans Fund of such sums as may be specified in the Act, being sums required to meet payments to any of the Communities or to Member States or to the European Investment Bank (or to redeem notes or obligations issued or created in respect of obligations to make such payments); and

  (b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses not so charged of any Minister of the Crown or government department, being expenses incurred under or by virtue of the Act or the treaties therein referred to.

  The Ways and Means Resolution is necessary because the European Com
  1138
  munities Bill proposes certain charges upon the people. The Money Resolution is similarly necessary because the Bill proposes charges on public funds. Both Resolutions are therefore enabling in that they are essential prerequisites to the consideration of this most important Bill in Committee. Both are limiting also in that they fix an upper limit to the charges that the Bill may impose on the people or on public funds, as the case may be. Thus, I am advised that if the House accepts the Resolutions it will be in order to discuss in Committee or on Report any Amendment to the financial Clauses of the Bill which does not actually increase the charges on the people or on public funds at present appearing in those Clauses.
  It is important that I should make this point at the outset. I recognise that some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House object to the financial provisions of the Bill. Nothing in the Resolutions will prevent them from making those objections or moving Amendments to remove, curtail or impose conditions or restrictions upon these provisions at the appropriate stages of the Bill's progress through Parliament.
  I now come to the purpose of the Resolutions, and I take first the Ways and Means Resolution. This founds the Clauses of the Bill authorising the levying of certain taxes, including customs duties from United Kingdom firms and individuals. Under the Treaty of Rome, as amended by later treaties, and by virtue of various regulations of the Communities, a variety of agricultural levies, coal and steel levies and customs duties must he raised and paid over to the Communities by member countries. It is therefore necessary for the House, in order to implement its decision to join the Communities, to provide by Act of Parliament for the raising of these levies and duties in this country.
  The relevant Clauses are Clause 2(1) and subsections (1), (2) and (5) of Clause 5. Clause 2(1), as was repeatedly noted last week in the debate, covers among other things, directly applicable liabilities and obligations. These comprise agricultural levies under the common agricultural policy and the coal and steel levies due under Article 49 of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty. Community legislation covering

  1139
  these charges applies directly in member countries. Clause 2(1) makes the Community legislation enforceable in the United Kingdom.
  Clause 5(1) covers, first, customs duties payable under the common customs tariff after the end of the transitional period and, second, customs duties for certain goods which are covered neither by the common customs tariff nor by any other directly applicable provision. This is intended to provide for the tariff on coal and steel products.
  Clause 5(2) confers on the Treasury a power to make orders to cover imports where the Community has authorised a duty different from that in the common customs tariff or where a duty is allowed between member countries. Clause 5(5) contains an order-making power to cover duties chargeable during the transitional period. Those are the only taxing powers existing today to which the Bill and therefore the Resolution apply.
  Of course, Clause 2(1)—this is what the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) may have had in mind when he murmured a moment ago—covers
  "…liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising…"
  It is in the nature of the Communities that they are developing organisations. For instance, within the ambit of the common agricultural policy new commodities may well come up for inclusion within the levy system, and for the existing commodities the levy rates are regularly changed. Therefore, it is necessary to make provision for such new levies and for such changes to be directly applicable in this country.
  But it is right to go on to make two further points. Firstly, there are no express provisions in the treaty which contemplate levies and duties in other areas. Secondly, no new charges could be applied for the benefit of the Communities without the express approval of Parliament. In other words, charges producing own resources must be ratified by member countries before they can become applicable, and ratification would be by Order in Council under Clause 1(3).
  Sir Robin Turton: Does that ignore, after 1978, the rate
  1140
  of value-added tax throughout the Community?
  Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that. I shall deal with it in some detail in a few minutes.
  As I have said, the charges comprising own resources, charges applied for the benefit of the Communities, would require ratification by the House under the Order in Council procedure under Clause 1(3). Entirely new charges not forming part of the own resources are always possible, but they could be made applicable only after the Community procedures had been followed. Before such a charge reached the stage of being a Community decision, the Government would have played a full part in the Council of Ministers. Parliament, too, would have had an opportunity to comment under the proposed arrangements for apprising members of draft regulations and directives proposed to the Council before they are adopted.
  Mr. Eric Deakins: Would Parliament have a power of veto over any new taxation not specified in the Bill?
  Mr. Jenkin: It is necessary to draw a distinction between what I have described and new taxation. We are talking about taxation directly charged upon the people, to use the time-hallowed phrase, which could be applied towards the Community's own resources. That would be subject to the Order in Council procedure. If the House does not accept a decision of the Communities in that form, that would throw into question the whole continuing membership of the Communities. So far as we are dealing with taxes which would not be own resources, but which would accrue to the Government of this country, it is possible for such taxes in the nature of the agricultural policy levies and the coal and steel levies—there are not others in contemplation in any of the treaties—to be applied directly by virtue of Clause 2(1).
  Mr. Douglas Jay: If one of the existing levies—say, an agricultural levy—was raised in amount but was not a new levy in itself, would that require an Order in Council?
  Mr. Jenkin: No. I understand that if it were, as the agricultural levies are, directly applicable, it is intended that Clause 2(1) should cover it. These are

  1141
  part of the inescapable conditions of membership of the Community and adherence to the agricultural policy.
  Mr. Jay: It would not then come before this House at all.
  Mr. Jenkin: Except in so far as the preliminary Community procedures and the procedures under the Select Committee so provided.
  But it is right to recognise just how narrow this direct taxing power is. Here I come to the point made by my right hon. Friend. Neither Clause 2(1) nor the Ways and Means Resolution covers, for instance, the value-added tax. By the Community decision of 21st April, 1970, the Communities' own resources will, by 1st January, 1975, comprise three items—the common agricultural policy levies, the common customs duties and the proceeds of a value-added tax at a rate not exceeding 1 per cent. I can give an assurance that the Ways and Means Resolution is not concerned with the last named of those.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be introducing a value-added tax in his Budget this year, and the House will be able to debate the Finance Bill in the usual way. The charge on the United Kingdom taxpayer will arise under that Bill and not under the Resolution.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Is not that a temporary measure in the sense that ultimately there will be harmonisation between the Community and ourselves, if we are part of it, on the question of the levels of value-added tax? At that stage the discussions and arguments will take place as to the precise level. What happens then if we do not accept the levels agreed by the rest of the Community?
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is right when he talks about harmonisation, though that is not the phrase used in the decision of 21st April, 1970, which refers to its being assessed in a uniform manner. [Laughter.] This is important, because it is recognised, although discussion is going on on the subject in the Commission, that there may well be differences in the taxes as they apply in the different countries. I certainly do not envisage that it would ever be possible for a value-added tax to be a directly
  1142
  applicable tax. I envisage—here I can only give the House the best possible view we can express at the time—that any subsequent changes to the tax as accepted by the House, if indeed it is accepted when the Finance Bill becomes law this year, changes to comply with a decision to harmonise the tax, would themselves require further legislation. They could not be made under the Bill.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Apart from any future changes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred, what about the position the Financial Secretary has now announced, well in advance of the Budget, that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will introduce the value-added tax? What if the House came to the conclusion by a majority that it did not want to accept that proposal? Would it be able to change that? If not, do we still need a Chancellor of the Exchequer? Would not a Second Under-Secretary be able to introduce a Budget?
  Mr. Jenkin: A value-added tax imposing a charge on the citizens of this country can only be introduced if the appropriate legislation—not the Bill, not the Resolution—is passed by the House. The hon. Gentleman is posing a hypothetical question. Perhaps it is not necessary for me to answer at this stage.
  Mr. Mendelson: Yes it is.
  Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Gentleman presses me on this, the answer is that, as with other Community obligations, if Parliament is not prepared to accept the obligations inherent in the decision it took in principle last October, it calls into question the continuance of the application and of the Communities as a whole, should we by then be a member. This, as has been stated and made perfectly clear, is the substance of the matter.
  Perhaps I can reinforce my point. As I said, there can be no question of extending the system for handing over the proceeds of taxation to the Community without a fresh agreement between member States, that is to say, a treaty. An agreement between member States was needed to set up the present own resources system. Although the terms of the agreement are embodied in what is described as a Council decision, that of 21st April, 1970, Article 201 of the original Rome

  1143
  Treaty, in pursuance of which the Council was acting, required that the Council's proposals be recommended to the member States for their adoption and, correspondingly, any extension of this financing system will be subject to the same procedure as is recognised in the terms of the existing decision. This means not only that the United Kingdom Government would have to consent but also that affirmative Resolutions would be needed from Parliament under Clause 1(3) of the Bill, as otherwise the Government would have no authority to hand over the necessary funds to the Community. Until the affirmative resolutions had been obtained under Clause 1(3), a new arrangement could not constitute a Community obligation for the purpose of Clause 2(3) and could not, therefore, be implemented by the Government.
  Mr. Michael English: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but surely he would agree that to be able to tax the British people by possibly a completely new tax by the mere agreement of the Council of Ministers followed by an Order in Council and one Resolution of the House is very different from our previous procedures whereby, for example, we study the Finance Bill in great detail when it imposes a tax over a period of months in any given year.
  Mr. Jenkin: As the 1967 White Paper recognised, there are constitutional innovations. That was recognised.
  Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman means that there is no scope for amendment.
  Mr. Jenkin: But it must be recognised—I have tried to make this point—that in the treaties as they now stand there are no proposals covering commodities othen than agricultural and coal and steel commodities for levies corresponding to those which would now be directly applicable under Clause 2(1). That would only arise under an extension of the treaties, which would require the procedures of the House to become effective.
  I emphasise what I have been saying because it is essential to recognise just how limited is the extent to which, by the Bill and by this Ways and Means Resolution, the Community can impose taxation directly on citizens of the United
  1144
  Kingdom. Let me also emphasise that no one who supported the application to join can reasonably cavil at these consequences. It has been part of the Community system from the earliest years to have Community duties and levies—custom duties, agricultural levies and coal and steel levies.
  Article 201 of the original Rome Treaty provides that
  "The Commission shall examine the conditions under which the financial contributions of Member States provided for in Article 200 could be replaced by the Community's own resources, in particular by revenue accruing from the common customs tariff when it has been finally produced."
  It clearly contemplated that in due course the Community would have its own resources, in particular, revenue accruing from the common customs tariff, when in force, and that these own resources should replace the member State contributions provided for elsewhere in the Treaty. The Article required the Commission to submit proposals to that end.
  Then we had Regulation 25 of 1962, which established the principle that at the single market stage the agricultural levies should belong to the Communities. Next:
  "In May, 1966…the Council agreed…that from July, 1967, to December, 1969, Member States will hand over to the Guarantee Section"—
  of the guidance and guarantee fund—
  "sums equal to 90 per cent. of the proceeds of levies on agricultural imports."
  That quotation is from the previous Government's White Paper of 4th May, 1967, on the basis of which the House voted on 10th May, 1967, to approve the Government's statement of intention to apply for membership.
  On 22nd December, 1969, the Community reached agreement on the new system of Community financing envisaged by Article 201. This is the system of own resources which is now in force. It is described briefly in paragraph 8 and more fully in paragraph 18 of the previous Government's White Paper of February, 1970, Cmnd. 4280, "Britain and the European Communities. An Economic Assessment." It is clearly there stated that levies on agricultural imports and customs duties would be handed over to the Community. Clearly

  1145
  Britain would be bound by the regulation from the end of the transitional period, for as paragraph 43 says
  "In the negotiations it will be necessary not only to settle our starting contribution to the Fund, but also to settle the transitional arrangements under which we approach paying our full share of the recently agreed Community financing arrangements."
  It is abundantly clear, therefore, that the House knew, before applying for Membership, that joining the Community entailed accepting a system whereby Community duties are imposed on United Kingdom citizens and firms and handed over to the Community. That is what Clauses 2(1) and 5(1), (2) and (5) achieve.
  Mr. John Mendelson: On that point, as the hon. Gentleman said that everyone knew, did the Prime Minister include that clear statement in the Conservative Party election manifesto in 1970?
  Mr. Jenkin: With respect, I am not sure whether that was a particularly relevant intervention.
  Mr. Mendelson: Give the answer—"Yes" or "No".
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman knows that there has been a vast amount of literature—I have some of it with me—on the subject of our application to join. Perhaps it is a little unrealistic to suggest that all the details would have been spelt out in the manifesto.
  It is perfectly clear that everyone in the House who professed to understand this matter knew all about it. Anyone who voted for the application was to have been taken to have known all about it, unless his vote was to be regarded as a frivolous nonsense. Anyone who voted in favour of the application in 1967 or 1970 cannot cavil at these terms on this ground, now that the necessary statutory provisions are before the House.
  I turn now to the Money Resolution. As I explained, this is needed because the Bill provides for certain payments from public funds to the Communities and to Community institutions. These include, first, most of the levies and customs duties about which I have been speaking. They will eventually be paid over in full but a refund of 10 per cent. to cover the costs of collection will be made to member countries. Then—and here the Money Resolution goes a little wider than the
  1146
  Ways and Means Resolution—the Money Resolution will cover the payment by the United Kingdom of the V.A.T. proceeds up to a 1 per cent. rate. As the House knows, all that we have so far is a Community directive of 1967 that member countries will introduce a V.A.T. system, and the decision of 21st April, 1970, that up to a 1 per cent. yield of such a V.A.T. assessed on a uniform basis, will constitute part of the Communities' own resources. As yet there are no common rules of coverage, no common rules of assessment and no common rates. In Articles 99 and 100 of the Rome Treaty, these would have to be agreed unanimously, and we shall be a full participating member by then. But when these are agreed and when the Communities issue a directive, and when the House has accepted separate legislation, the United Kingdom will be under an obligation to pay over to the Communities the proceeds of our V.A.T. up to a rate of 1 per cent., and this will replace the member State contributions provided for in the transitional period.
  The Money Resolution goes wider than these payments which constitute the Community's own resources. It covers, in addition, the member State contribution, which is the residual element of the original revenue system, due to be phased out when the value-added tax provisions become effective.
  Then there are various capital payments and loans due under Clause 2(3) of the Bill. They come under four heads: contributions to capital and reserves of the European Investment Bank, a contribution to the reserves of the Coal and Steel Community, loans to member States under the medium-term assistance scheme, and loans to the European Investment Bank. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State explained on Tuesday, the European Investment Bank raises almost all its funds in the Market. However, there is provision in its Articles for member States to lend to it and, accordingly, provision must be made in the Bill.
  Here, I think, we come to the point raised in the Amendment. The Money Resolution provides that all these charges on public funds shall be charged directly on the Consolidated Fund, or alternatively, by Treasury direction, on the National Loans Fund. Last week's debate indicated that perhaps this did

  1147
  not meet with universal approval. It has been argued that the sums or some part of them, perhaps, should be voted annually. Therefore, I put briefly the case for charging them on the Consolidated Fund. I say "briefly" because this is a matter which, as the Resolution stands, will be fully open to debate when the Bill reaches Committee.
  The most important, in money terms, of our Community obligations is that to pay over our share of the budget. By virtue of the decision of 21st April, 1970, and the implementing Regulation of 2nd January, 1971, the levies and customs duties must be handed over within two months from the end of the month during which the levy or duty accrued due. In other words, these funds never really belong to the United Kingdom. By a continuous process throughout the year, they flow through the Consolidated Fund to the Community budget. The Community's entitlement to the money is absolute from the moment that a claim on the importer for the levy or the duty is established.
  Mr. English: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, while what he is saying must be true philosophically and while it would be wrong to refuse the money, the regulation that he has quoted says that it should be done by the constitutional procedures of each member State? Therefore, I suggest that, since it will in fact be done, presumably, by the Comptroller and Auditor General releasing from the Consolidated Fund or something of that character under the authority of the Bill, which is one constitutional procedure, it could be done equally well by the Comptroller and Auditor General releasing sums under the authority of Bills passed annually.
  Mr. Jenkin: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will develop that point if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept what he says about the constitutional authority. My point is that, bearing in mind the reality and the nature of these payments of levies and duties and the fact that they flow through the Consolidated Fund, I suggest that voting them annually would be wholly inappropriate.
  Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Gentleman has said that this Money Resolution went considerably wider in
  1148
  that, in some respects, it covered the value-added tax, or will cover it. Will these processes of flow applying to the levies without this House having any possibility of intervening also apply to the value-added tax when it is fully constituted as part of the own resources"? Secondly, why would not it be just as convenient not to have this Money Resolution covering the V.A.T. but to deal with it when we deal with the substantive legislation dealing with the V.A.T., by which time everyone may have had a chance to examine what the tax means?
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that his first question is one which does not admit of an answer. The necessary Community decisions have not been taken. The only decision is that there should be a value-added tax in member countries, the decision that eventually up to a one per cent. rate would be applied to "own resources". How this will be done, what would be the procedures and how the uniform rate would be worked out is not a matter on which a decision has been reached.
  Mr. Foot: I want to get this quite clear. Does that mean that the decision about how the money to be collected by means of the V.A.T. is to be handed over to the Community and whether there is to be any subsequent intervention by this House depends not upon a decision of this House but upon the Council of Ministers?
  Mr. Jenkin: With respect, it is bound to depend on the decision of this House. The necessary changes in any value-added tax needed to take account of any subsequent decision of the Communities to make the decision of 21st April, 1970, effective would be bound to come before this House, otherwise we should simply not have the machinery to do it.
  Mr. Foot: I am sorry to be tedious—
  Mr. Jenkin: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will seek an opportunity to develop his point later, otherwise my speech will go on indefinitely.
  My point in relation to the agricultural levies and the duties is that, as has been recognised ever since the necessary Community Regulations were passed, these do not in reality belong to member countries but flow through, in our case, the

  1149
  Consolidated Fund to the Communities. I suggest that an annual Vote in these circumstances would be wholly inappropriate. It would not recognise the reality of our obligation. Such an obligation can be properly reflected only by charging the payments directly on the Consolidated Fund. Anything else would be incompatible with the decision and the Regulation. Similar considerations might be expected to apply to the V.A.T. contribution as and when it started to flow.
  Then I come to the member State contribution. This could, it is true, be voted like other international contributions and subscriptions. But, given the inevitable treatment of the levies, duties and perhaps the V.A.T. share, would not putting the member State contribution on a Vote be somewhat unreal? Bearing in mind that it is due to be phased out, it seems reasonable and sensible to treat it in the same way as the first group of payments.
  Then there are the capital contributions. Those to the Investment Bank and the Coal and Steel Community reserves are initial subscriptions and part of the inevitable price of joining. Parliament could not refuse to vote them while still claiming accession to the Communities. Therefore these, too, are properly charged on the Consolidated Fund.
  Finally, there are the loans to the Investment Bank and to member States under the medium-term assistance scheme. Clearly these would be appropriately charged on the National Loans Fund, as indicated by my hon. Friend the Minister of State last week. They, too, represent firm obligations under the Treaties, and one is doing no more than recognising that fact by charging them direct on the National Loans Fund. After all, this is the procedure used by Governments of both parties for the very similar loans to the International Monetary Fund where similar considerations apply.
  What is the main reason put up in the debate last week for objecting to this procedure? It is said that Parliament's control of public expenditure thereby will be weakened. I believe that argument to be somewhat unreal.
  First, it is recognised increasingly that our long-established procedure of Estimates, Votes, Appropriations and the rest, while essential to ensure proper accounting for expenditure, offers Parlia
  1150
  ment at best only theoretical control. The form is there. We all know the reality has long since departed. Those hon. Members who sat on the Procedure Committee which determined that we needed a much better system of Parliamentary control making use of the five-year Public Expenditure White Paper and involving eventually the Select Committee on Expenditure, will know that this is regarded as necessary because the established Statutory procedures have become really only the shadow and not the substance of control by this House.
  Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman is now developing an important new constitutional doctrine beyond the immediate debate. Is he now saying that the only reason why Parliament has subjected any financial outlay to its own strict and direct approval was for accountancy purposes? Is he not ignoring the far more important reason, namely that we control policy as a result of the control of finance? Is he to overthrow in an afterthought centuries of constitutional doctrine?
  Mr. Jenkin: I am doing nothing of the sort. I am dealing with the question of whether the importance of Parliament actually being able to vote on an individual matter of expenditure represents the reality of Parliament's control over the Executive. It is true that the whole of the form is there, is necessary, and will be preserved for expenditure on Votes. But I hope that hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House will recognise that when we are talking about the control of expenditure it is not the Estimate, Vote and Appropriation procedure that provides Parliament with the influence which it may have upon the control of public expenditure.
  Mr. Jay: Is not the hon. Gentleman simply arguing that because in his view we now only have the form and not the substance therefore instead of restoring the substance we should throw away the form?
  Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman could have a good point, but unless he is proposing that we should seek to restore the procedures, the timing, the Motions, and all the rest that used to accompany the Estimates, Votes and Appropriations for the whole range of

  1151
  voted expenditure, his argument is a bit unreal.
  Instead the House has recognised, and this was done under the previous Government, that we are now developing a new panoply of effective controls over public expenditure—five-year expenditure White Papers, the annual two-day debate, and most important—I make no excuse for saying this—the Select Committee on Expenditure. I can assure the House that all the money covered by this Money Resolution will be fully covered by that procedure. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) raised the point in last week's debate about the Select Committee on Expenditure being entitled to examine this. I answer him categorically by saying, "Yes". It will be open to the Committee to probe as deeply as it wishes into the expenditure.
  Mr. Neil Marten: That would mean that the Expenditure Committee would go roaming throughout the Community to follow up the money that was being raised here, to see that it was properly spent?
  Mr. Jenkin: That would be a matter for the Committee to decide in accordance with the normal conventions of the House.
  The argument is that the payments voted are not adequately debatable. I am saying if they are charged directly it is true that they are not debatable on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill but they can always be debated under the Supply procedure introduced in 1966 and on Motions tabled for Supply Days. These payments can be the subject of Parliamentary Questions, they can be raised in debates on the Adjournment. There will be ample opportunity to discuss, question and challenge these payments.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My hon. Friend said that these payments could be the subject of Parliamentary Questions. Does this mean that there will be Ministerial responsibility in this House for the expenditure of the "own resources" money?
  Mr. Jenkin: My right hon. Friend knows the House of Commons well enough to know that it is not beyond the
  1152
  ingenuity of hon. Members to devise forms of questions which will allow the substance of the matter to be raised at Question Time. The only limitation imposed by putting these sums directly on the Consolidated Fund and not on the Votes is that they cannot, year by year, be voted down. I would ask the House to recall when the last occasion was that the House ever exercised its power to vote down an Estimate. Even my right hon. Friend the Father of the House, the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) would be hard put to it to recall the occasion.
  In 1919 the Committee on Supply threw out an Estimate for Lord Chancellor Haldane's bathroom which was costing £4,800. Subsequently one of my predecessors, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, had to come before the House and ask it to reinstate £2,000 of that money because it had already been spent. That was the last occasion on which Parliament used its power to reject even a single item in a Vote.
  Mr. Michael Foot Mr. Michael Foot rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: I really must get on.
  Mr. Foot: Practically all of this time is provided by the Opposition so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not complain about my putting questions to him dealing with matters of great importance. He says that the House of Commons has not exercised its right to reject Estimates. In this sense it may be that the House has not been successful in carrying it through but I can give him instance after instance when his own party in opposition thought it was the only way in which it could exercise its rights. I remember Sir Winston Churchill when he was Leader of the Opposition tabling Motions dealing with Supplementary Estimates on the Health Service. What the hon. Gentleman is laughing at, mocking, is one of the most elementary rights that we have in this House and he really cannot dismiss it in this manner.
  Mr. Jenkin: With the greatest respect, I am doing no such thing. What I am saying is that this House when it really wants to exercise its influence on expenditure—
  Mr. John Mendelson: Has used this method.
  Mr. Jenkin: No, with respect it has not. It has followed other methods, including the Supply Day method. As recently as 1966 it has extended Supply Days so that matters which are standing charges on the Consolidated Fund come within Supply Day Motions. These are some of the opportunities which are available to the House. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that I am not mocking anyone. I am pointing to the fact that the last occasion on which this was done was in 1919.
  Sir Robin Turton: My hon. Friend has referred to me in this respect and I can give him a concrete example of the value of this method, when the House questioned the groundnut scheme in East Africa on a Supply Day. As the Minister responsible was a member of the Government and they had a majority the Motion did not succeed, but the House discharged its responsibility of questioning a gross waste of expenditure. We want to be able to do exactly the same in future but we will not be able to under this Resolution.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am happy to reassure my right hon. Friend, because that is exactly what he will be able to do if those payments are charged on the Consolidated Fund.
  Mr. English: How?
  Mr. Jenkin: By tabling a Motion for the Supply Day. That was the procedure recommended by the Procedure Committee when my right hon. Friend was a member in the 1965–66 Session. It recommended a change so that matters of this sort should be debateable.
  Mr. Heffer: A simple point. Suppose the Motion was carried. What happens?
  Mr. Jenkin: I have no doubt that if it were sufficiently serious to be treated as a matter of confidence the necessary consequences would follow, just as they would have followed in the procedure to which my right hon. Friend referred in relation to the groundnut scheme.
  Mr. Jay: If it is true that we can debate this expenditure on a Supply Day just as much as if it was on the Consolidated Fund why does the right hon.
  1154
  Gentleman want to put it on the Consolidated Fund?
  Mr. Jenkin: Because putting it directly on the Consolidated Fund recognises the reality of the obligations which the House and country are accepting in joining the Communities. These are not payments on which it is appropriate to vote automatically, year by year, and which if not so voted would not pass to the Communities. I would have thought that was an argument of considerable substance.
  The payments will, of course, come within the ambit of the Exchequer and Audit Department, the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report and the P.A.C. The accounting officer—I am advised that this will be the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury—can be questioned on them. The reality of parliamentary scrutiny under these procedures is every bit as efficacious as it would be under the procedures of Estimate, Vote and Appropriation and I submit that these proposals are right. These two Resolutions are necessary to allow the Bill to proceed. I hope that I have explained their purpose and effect adequately.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Shore: We took the rather unusual step of seeking a separate and substantial debate on these two Resolutions so that we can focus the attention of the House and the country on what appear to be almost unique features of the European Communities Bill: I refer to the expenditure and taxation obligations which the Measure will impose. I am sure that we were right to do this. We are right because to us the principal defect in the negotiations, as revealed in the White Paper last July, in the Treaty of Accession and to some extent in the Bill itself, as they affect the prosperity of this country, is the heavy burden which we shall have to bear in meeting the financial obligations of membership.
  It is also right for us to have this debate because these two Resolutions undoubtedly do great damage to the effective authority of Parliament. While the Money Resolution would deny us the opportunity of effectively scrutinising these large payments, the Ways and

  1155
  Means Resolution—the most extraordinary that has ever come before Parliament—actually cedes the power of taxation to the European Communities. If I had any doubt at all in my mind about the value of having such a debate, such doubt would have been completely dispelled in listening to the splendid exposition by the Financial Secretary, who put the matters to us as plainly, as brutally and as unacceptably as the matters deserve to be put. We are deeply grateful to him for doing so. We have learned a lot in the process of question and answer in which my right hon. and hon. Friends have engaged with the Financial Secretary. We have learned also from his exposition of what is involved.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin Mr. Patrick Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Shore: I have not finished paying my tribute.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I want to be spared my blushes. He said "as unacceptably", but I did not say anything in my speech of which he as a member of the last Government was unaware at the time when the 1970 White Paper was published.
  Mr. Shore Mr. Shore rose—
  Hon. Members: Go on.
  Mr. Shore: I shall deal with that. There is no need to worry. The Financial Secretary comes relatively new to these debates. There are veterans sitting behind him who will be well aware of the moves in this chess game. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has made a whole series of moves which it is becoming very tedious to follow. I would rather not do so now but I have something deliberate to say about these things and I shall come to that.
  I was saying that we welcomed what the Financial Secretary said and the clarity of his exposition, because there are matters here which we need to have explained to us. We have also taken aboard a number of matters—warnings for the future, perhaps—of which the House may not have been wholly aware. I refer to what the hon. Gentleman said about the Communities being developing institutions and, therefore, the possibility that future taxes might be added to the
  1156
  "own resources" package. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) referred to the Communities being able to increase the existing levels of "own resources" taxes without such matters necessarily coming before this Parliament.
  The Financial Secretary also told us a great deal about his attitude to what is involved in the extraordinary justification which he gave of the procedures concerned in the Money Resolution when he told us that in a sense it did not matter because we have already lost the reality of control over expenditure in this House. If people start the discussion and approach to these matters on the basis that we have already substantially lost control over expenditure and the proper use of the House of Commons, those who start with such propositions will be driven to quite appalling conclusions.
  I shall say nothing on this occasion about the nature of the taxes which are involved in the package covered by the Resolutions. I shall defer comment on the effects of the taxing of our food and all the goods and services that will be covered by the value-added tax and the effect that those taxes will be bound to have on the cost of living, on our distribution of incomes and on the health of our economy. I shall confine myself to the total sums involved and the impact which these may have on our national prosperity. Clearly, substantial sums are involved; just how substantial, however, we do not know. As the Money Resolution asserts, there are to be
  "such sums as may be specified in the Act, being sums required to meet payments to any of the Communities or to Member States or to the European Investment Bank",
  and so on.
  Although we have every reason to believe that they are substantial, these sums are nowhere adequately described or defined. In the Treaty of Accession itself the financial provisions are briefly dealt with in Articles 127 to 132. There we find some account of the taxes which we are to pay and, in the transitional period, the reduced contribution we are to make, a distinction which hon. Members will recognise. Unfortunately, no figures of value are produced in the treaty itself. All that the treaty sees fit to expose is the rising percentage of our

  1157
  notional percentage payment to the Community budget in the years 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977 and then the further fractions which we are to pay in 1978–79. There is an empty space for 1980 when we commence payments under the Community "own resources" system—a complete void at that point.
  The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum is a little more forthcoming. There we are reminded that
  "The Government's estimate is that the net cost to the United Kingdom, taking into account estimates of possible receipts from the budget, might rise from about £100 million in 1973 to about £200 million in 1977".
  As the House will recall, this is simply a summary of the information in the July, 1971, White Paper in which we were told that our total net contribution for the five years 1973–77 was likely to be £725 million. Again, beyond 1977 the Bill, like the Treaty of Accession, gives us no guidance, and the Government have refused adamantly to go further themselves.
  We understand the Government's embarrassment in this matter, but the best estimate that I and others have been able to make is that there will be very sharp increases indeed after 1977 beyond the £200 million net contribution that we shall make then. So far as we can judge, the net contribution by 1980, rising very steeply indeed, is likely to be about £470 million a year—the figure that the Government themselves presented to the Six in Brussels on 30th July, 1970. It will be recalled that this vast sum—we must establish it, because we are talking not of trivialities but of major sums—must be paid from whatever trade surplus we can earn and has to be handed over across the balance of payments as a direct cash payment to the Community.
  The House will also recall that, apart from the last two years—when our surpluses have been swollen by appallingly high unemployment and by exchange rate changes of an unprecedented kind—this country, in the whole post-war period, has never once earned a surplus as large as the figure which by 1980 we are expected annually to pay. This is a very serious matter. Difficulties with our balance of payments have been a recurring theme in our post-war economy—the main reason why we have found it so difficult to attain a satisfactory rate of
  1158
  growth in the British economy and the reason why we have had intermittent bouts of high unemployment and periods of economic stop.
  Because it is so serious, I regret the Government's refusal to discuss this matter frankly. Instead, as we all know, they have sought to avoid the issue, first by asserting that realistic estimates cannot be made, then by throwing dust in our eyes with the assertion—quite irrelevant to the issue itself and also untrue—that the Labour Government had accepted the same burden, and finally, as I reminded the House last week, by relying on that rather pathetic verbal formula that if unacceptable situations arose—in other words, if we could not pay—the Community would somehow have to find a solution.
  That is the backcloth. But not only are we being asked to authorise a dangerously large and open-ended and uncosted amount—I must emphasise that it is uncosted, open-ended and very large—but we have every reason to believe that the burden which the Community financing system imposes will be disproportionately heavy upon ourselves, much heavier than on any other member of the Community.
  It is extraordinary that in all our debates we have not had any comment from the Government as to the distribution of these tax burdens between the different members of the Community, either as it is now or as it would be if it were enlarged. The best estimate that we can make from outside is that the Community budget would cost Germany, with a considerably larger income than our own, about £130 million a year. Italy, with a smaller national income than our own, will come out virtually even. Belgium and Luxembourg expect to gain about £27 million a year, the Netherlands £180 million and France over £310 million a year.
  I hope that those figures are lodged in the minds of hon. Members because it is against these figures that we have to view the minus of £470 million a year, which is the only estimate which has been made of Britain's contribution under the "own resources" formula. In short, as those hon. Members who can do these sums will already have discovered, we shall be financing ourselves by far the larger part of the Community's transfer payment.

  1159
  How has this come about? During the earlier years of the Community, the Community budget was financed largely through national contributions based on the relative national income of the member States. A kind of key was established to try to be fair in assessing the contributions of the nation States according to their relative economic strength. This was supplemented, as we were reminded by the Financial Secretary, by levies on imported food. The exact mix was agreed for two- or three-year periods and was subject to considerable variations at different stages in the long initial transitional period.
  It will be recalled—this is my first comment direct to the Financial Secretary—that it was precisely the levies on imported food which were the subject of the major reservation by my right hon. Friends on the eve of the "non-negotiation" of 1967. The then Foreign Secretary said in his speech at The Hague:
  "I think it is recognised that the existing financial arrangements would be an inequitable burden on the United Kingdom".
  That was what he said in 1967, so it is no good pretending that this was accepted by us. That was said deliberately, and it could only have related to the levies, which were the only tax then in force.
  The Foreign Secretary went on to say—this is the direct answer to that part of the Financial Secretary's charge—
  "We shall look forward to taking part as a full member of the Community in the negotiation of the financial arrangements for the period after the end of 1969."
  In other words we would, under those arrangements, from the inside, have had that very right of veto over the development of permanent arrangements which could alone have preserved our position as an applicant State. This is a very important change indeed.
  In April, 1970, at the end of the Community's original 12-year period, the Community of course agreed its new and now permanent financial system. It was only when that was agreed, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster well knows, that France decided that she would be prepared to open the possibilities of negotiation.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): As the right hon. Gentleman knows, although
  1160
  the formal agreement was in April, 1970, the nature of these arrangements was known in February, 1970, and taken into account in the Labour Government's own White Paper.
  Mr. Shore: It was not, with respect. I remember all this very well. The February, 1970, debate—[Interruption.] This is where we get into the chess game about paragraphs 43 and 44. I do not want to go over all that ground again, but I have something slightly new to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. [An HON. MEMBER: "We do not have time."] We have time to elaborate these points. If hon. Members want a full reply on this matter, they can have it. They should not imagine that there are not replies to these rather jejune points, because there are.
  Perhaps I can give the right hon. and learned Gentleman what he wants—one or two quotations. I will quote first from the February White Paper. I inform the House and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that this is the last time I intend to do this, because it is just trivialising and boring for us to go over these matters when what really matters is whether it is the right decision—not who said what and when.
  This is the last time, I think, that in response to this challenge I shall be bothered with this absurd exercise. I will now read what is said in paragraph 44 of the White Paper of February, 1970:
  "The implementing decisions have not yet been taken"—
  that is, of the new, own-resources system.
  "They have reached agreement in principle on arrangements for meeting the cost, but their application in a reasonable and equitable way to our situation must be a matter for negotiation, as has always been recognised."
  To make it absolutely plain and beyond further dispute I have now to call in aid the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, when he spoke to this White Paper in the House in the debate on 24th February, 1970. My right hon. Friend said:
  "The White Paper of which we are asked to take note reaffirms the policy of opening negotiations. It does not make announcements on policy. It reaffirms, rightly, that item of policy"—

  1161
  the reopening of negotiations:
  "it goes no further. It is not a statement of policy but a response to the repeated and indeed justifiable requests for an economic assessment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1970; Vol. 796, c. 998.]
  How can that possibly be represented in all fairness and honesty as being an endorsement and acceptance by the Labour Government of 1970?
  Mr. Russell Kerr: May I supplement what my right hon. Friend has just said? Is it not the fact that with the publication in the February, 1970, White Paper of the truly astronomical cost, making it known to Labour Members at any rate for the first time, there was a total swing of opinion within the then Government party which has resulted ever since in a very determined majority against these ridiculous proposals?
  Mr. Shore: The White Paper had a very considerable effect. I do not think it was necessarily the only factor in the matter but I believe it is no coincidence that opinion in the country, and to some extent in the political parties, was influenced by that White Paper, as indeed it should have been.
  Mr. Rippon: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear that he has quoted only a very small part of paragraph 44 and left out paragraph 43? Will he not agree that paragraph 44 of that White Paper which he accepted went into very considerable detail on the net effect on our balance of payments burden? In 1967 it was thought that it would be between £175 million and £200 million and it was then thought it might be higher, so there was not a great deal of difference between us on the end of the negotiations except that ours have produced better results than the Labour Government expected.
  Mr. Shore: The right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted earlier to establish the point that is so essential to him because he will not stand on his own two feet in the matter of argument. He wishes all the time to borrow and to lean upon the strength of what he pretends were specific commitments made by my right hon. Friends. Again, I can only say that one deplores this as a way of arguing these matters and I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman, speaking as I do with some knowledge and authority, that
  1162
  he is wrong and that we did not accept or consent to these proposals.
  Mr. Kerr: And we would not have been allowed to.
  Mr. Shore: That is all I can say to the House. I give the House that assurance and the right hon. and learned Gentleman really has to accept it from me. There is very little I can say beyond that.
  I was coming on to contrast the older systems with what was agreed in April, 1970. In the 1970 agreement the national contributions were to be abolished by 1975. The old figure relating these to the national income key is to be abolished in 1975 and replaced by the yield of the three taxes of which we have spoken—customs duties on goods imported from outside Europe, levies on food imported from outside Europe and the 1 per cent. value-added tax. Moreover, in so far as the yield of these taxes was needed for the expenditure of the Community they would cease, under the April, 1970 agreement, to be the revenue of member States and would become instead the Community's "own resources".
  I must point out to the House how it is that this system discriminates so harshly against us and why these taxes particularly hurt us. First, with our century-old policy of agricultural free trade and close ties with the American and Australasian continents, we are the biggest food importers in the world. Whereas the Six are by and large self-supporting in food, we import 50 per cent. of our food. So, of course, a system of levies is bound to affect us most grievously.
  The Government's own estimate in July, 1970, was that we would pay 45 per cent, of all the levies contributed to the Community. That was why my right hon. Friends, in the non-negotiation of 1967, made such a fuss and said we would not accept it, because they knew this was bound to be the case. Again, because we are world traders, because a much higher proportion of our imports comes from outside Europe than is the case with other members of the Common Market, we are bound to pay more customs levies than all the rest. Indeed we reckon, although we are one-fifth or less of an enlarged Community in terms of our national income that we would pay no less than one-third of the total customs duties to the Community.

  1163
  It is true that the value-added tax may work a little more fairly between the member States but it should be noted that it will be collected only after the full yield of the levies and customs duties have been collected and then only to the extent that that value-added tax contribution is required. This is not all. While we pay this ludicrously high proportion of the total budget for the reasons I have described—deep historical reasons which go to the very structure of our economy—we are also certain to receive a disproportionately small part of its expenditure. The main spending, after all, is to prop up the numerous small farms of the Six and to subsidise the sale of the surplus farm products of the Community as a whole. While 15 per cent of the employed population of the Six work on farms, less than 3 per cent. of our population work in British agriculture. Thus we cannot expect to be a large-scale recipient of moneys that are meant to help reorganise small farms or to help to deal with the problem of any large surplus production of home-grown food. We would receive very little.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman has made a great deal of the previous Government's objection to the agricultural levy system and the burden this would throw on our balance of payments after the transitional period, which he says is why his right hon. Friends made such a fuss about it.
  To remind myself I have been reading the last three paragraphs of the White Paper on Agriculture (Cmnd. 3274) which sets out what the effect of that common agricultural policy would be. There are a number of factors which it spells out as determining the figure but it nowhere mentions that it had anything to do with the negotiations, because the right hon. Gentleman's Government knew perfectly well that if they joined they had to accept the common agricultural policy as it stood from the end of the transitional period.
  Mr. Shore: The future of the common agricultural policy was not agreed in the spring of 1967, and still less the means of financing it. Anyone who does not understand that has just not been serious in doing the work that should be done to understand the Common Market.
  1164
  When we consider the net effects of what we pay out and receive back, these arrangements are little short of a national disaster. No Government in their senses could have agreed to terms so clearly against and detrimental to our interests. It is difficult to imagine a system of taxation, a tax mix, that could impose a heavier and more disproportionate burden upon us than the particular tax mix that has emerged as the permanent tax system of the Community under the "own resources" rule. I do not say that was the Community's purpose, but they have been extremely blind in not recognising the grievous effect this is bound to have upon us. Indeed, I cannot recall another example in history of a free country, without compulsion from outside, entering upon an arrangement so damaging to itself.
  Apart from being disastrous and unfair, these arrangements, as the Financial Secretary has made so abundantly clear, constitutes a direct challenge to the most important power of Parliament, our exclusive control over taxation. As the Ways and Means Resolution makes clear, we shall permit the Community to tax the British people. We are acceding not just to the Treaty of Rome but to the Treaty of Luxembourg of April, 1970, which specifically authorised the Community to have its own resources and to receive the yield of the three taxes to which I have referred.
  That agreement was a major development in the Community and I found it extraordinary that, in our debate last week, neither the Solicitor-General nor the Prime Minister had anything to say about it. The Solicitor-General amused himself greatly by quoting from the 1967 White Paper on the legal and constitutional implications of Britain joining the Common Market but, in his efforts to show that the constitutional innovation of the Communities having directly applicable law in the United Kingdom was known in 1967, he totally, and to me surprisingly, omitted to mention the second and even greater constitutional innovation which occurred in 1970: the right of the Communities to tax directly the member States. This was not mentioned in the 1967 White Paper. Why should it be, when the system we now know was not then evolved and the Community had not the right or the express

  1165
  intention at that stage of acquiring it? For the Prime Minister to say, as he did last Thursday, that the constitutional position has not changed in any single respect since the negotiations of 1961, when it was fully discussed in the House time and again, is stretching the truth to the greatest possible extent.
  This is a major development in the Communities, as a consequence of which there is a major intrusion into the sovereignty of Parliament. The strongest of all our constitutional principles is that Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons which represents the people of this country, alone has the right to levy taxation. That has been the basic constitutional doctrine. Because Parliament three centuries ago insisted on this right, we gradually brought the Crown and the Executive under the control of elected representatives. As we were reminded recently, Parliament made the supply of money to the Government conditional on the remedying of grievances. That was the way in which control by the House of Commons was brought about.
  There should be no doubt about what is intended here. It is not proposed that we should make a contribution to the Communities which we can alter if we think it is too much or too little. It is not a contribution at all. The right to levy the three taxes which are specified is to be ceded to non-elected institutions of the Community without the further consent of Parliament or the British people.
  As the Ways and Means Resolution puts it, we shall be
  "giving effect to any charge to taxation of those Communities ''.
  That is quite unacceptable to us.
  Further, as the Money Resolution makes clear, the moneys granted are to be charged on the Consolidated Fund or the National Loan Fund. The effect of the Money Resolution—and I am still unsatisfied by the Financial Secretary's explanation—is deliberately to place those sums outside the ordinary and annual scrutiny of this House. We have heard that it is possible for the House to discuss them, but my right hon. Friend made a major and salient point when he asked why the charges were put into the Standing Services of the Consoli
  1166
  dated Fund if it is just as easy to debate them there as it would be on ordinary Supply. The answer surely is that they are put there because it is more difficult. Why else should they be joining community with the Civil List, the servicing of the National Debt, Mr. Speaker's salary, judges' salaries and other matters which we do not think should normally be discussed year by year? I am always interested in what the Financial Secretary has to say, but his sophistry this afternoon was amazing.
  As the House will recognise, the purpose of our Amendment is to defeat this intention of the Government and to ensure that if any moneys are to be paid they will at least be provided by Parliament on an annual basis. I believe that the Amendment will recommend itself to all quarters of the House.
  While we shall seek support for our Amendment to the Money Resolution it is our intention to vote against the Ways and Means Resolution, thus expressing our resolute opposition both to the appalling bargain that the Government have struck in the negotiations and to the whole abominable principle that a non-elected institution outside this country should have the right to tax the British people.
  6.27 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Gardner: Had the speech which the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) has just made been translated into French, German or Dutch and made 15 years ago in any one of the Parliaments of the member States of the Community, one could have listened to it with some respect and with some apprehension about the future. If one looks back at the reports of speeches made in the Parliaments of Europe 15 years ago one sees that that kind of speech was being made time and time again by people who did not know the future and did not know what they were going into. Today, no one on either side of the House has any excuse for saying that he does not know of the experiences of Europe during the last 15 years.
  Mr. English: The hon. and learned Gentleman said, correctly, that there were many debates on this subject in many Parliaments, but is it not true that in the Bundestag it was decided that this

  1167
  matter should be discussed annually, which is exactly what we are saying?
  Mr. Gardner: Yes, but that is not appropriate now. I will explain and develop that as a point when I come to it.
  I am saying that there is nothing we know now that has not been known over certainly the last seven to 10 years. There is nothing that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said to the House today that the Socialist Government did not know. Indeed, the point that was put to the right hon. Member for Stepney about whether this was so has not been answered. It cannot be answered except in this way: that the speech by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary today cannot be regarded by anyone in the House as something that is new or contains any surprises. This has all been known for years. To suggest that the Government have in some way been concealing from the House or from the country the financial consequences of joining the Common Market is a travesty of the facts.
  In these circumstances I should like to look at the fundamentals of the position. As we all know, up to 1970 the Community was to be financed by the member States from levies on agricultural imports of which the whole, with the exception of a 10 per cent. rebate for collection costs, was to be handed over to the Community. The remainder of the finance for the Community was to be collected from national contributions by member States. We all know this; it is elementary. We all know that from 2nd January this year that system is being progressively changed so that ultimately the Community will be relying upon its own resources, and those resources will be collections from agricultural levies and customs dues. There is nothing new in this. It was all anticipated; it was all presumably in the minds of those who were dealing with the question whether we should apply for membership of the European Economic Community when the Labour Government made their application.
  What is required here? What is being asked of the Government? The only sure, practical way of financing the Community is to see that the finances that have to be raised for the Community
  1168
  budgets are there with certainty. If they are to depend upon an annual vote of individual Parliaments inside the Community, there will be no certainty. The funds have to be earmarked, there must be automatic payments. We cannot have the Community reduced to the financial condition of the United Nations, where contributions are made according to the whims of individual nations, can we? The Community cannot be run like that. It is quite out of the question.
  That because of these conditions, of which we have known for years, we should not go into the Community may be the view that some hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, and, let me add in all fairness, on this side of the House as well, hold and have expressed. But to suggest that until recently this has been in any way a party view, at least so far as the Opposition is concerned, is to look in a mirror that completely distorts the past, misleads the present and puts the future hopelessly out of focus.
  What the Government are seeking to do now is plain common sense. I speak as one who has been an enthusiastic European for many years and who does not treat this as a party matter, because indeed I do not. If I felt convinced, as do some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that the Community was not for this country, then indeed I would find myself in the position in which they have found themselves, and I like to think that I would have the political courage to do as they have done. But I do not, and I have not. I have spoken to them and they will agree with this. We have argued together, I hope in the best of good humour but none the less seriously, about the rights and wrongs of going into the Common Market. I have been convinced for many years. It would be wrong for me to detain the House—indeed I should be going outside the limits of this debate—to give my reasons for my conviction that this country ought, for its present and for its future, to go into the Common Market. But even as an enthusiastic European I am the last person in this House, I hope, who would wish to see the sovereignty of this House diminished.
  If that seems to some to be a contradiction, I will just say this to clarify the matter. In my view, when one joins in

  1169
  an agreement or joins a community of this kind there must inevitably be some diminution of freedom. It cannot be otherwise; there is give and take. [An HON. MEMBER: "Too much give and not enough take."] There is much give and a lot of take in this.
  In my anxiety over the powers of this House I am pleased to have heard from my hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that this House, through a Committee, will be given the opportunity of reviewing and examining, and no doubt analysing in depth, the directives and regulations which ultimately this House will have to accept unless it is able to identify some particular regulation or directive which is so detrimental to the interests of this country that we shall have to persuade our colleagues in the Community that our views must prevail.
  But these are matters which might be described as "old hat". We have known of them for years.
  Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a Second Reading speech.
  Mr. Gardner: No, I am not. I am making, I hope, a contribution in all seriousness to persuading the House that what the Government are doing is the only thing that can be done to provide the funds the Community needs from this country. I only hope that the misunderstandings and misrepresentations, the way in which some Opposition Members are seeking to deceive the country about what is being done—
  Mr. Shore: Deceiving themselves.
  Mr. Gardner: Deceiving themselves as well indeed but, fortunately, not the whole House of Commons. I hope that this will not in any way confuse the issue. I for one support wholeheartedly the manner in which the Government seek to fulfil their obligations—obligations of which we have known for many years.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I listened in amazement to the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), who made a somewhat lengthy explanation to tell the House that, because he had always been in favour of Europe, that must of necessity be right. He may be right, but
  1170
  I have always been strongly against going into Europe and claim that I also have been right.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman tried to denigrate some of my hon. Friends because they may or may not have changed their views since 1967. Since that time they may perhaps have become anti-Common Market, whereas formerly they were pro. However, it is not unusual for politicians on both sides of the House to change their views.
  I remember in 1962 my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition being violently anti-Common Market, and there are many quotations I could use in support of that argument. In those days no attack was made on him. In 1966 he changed his mind because he thought he would be able to negotiate favourable conditions. Many of us thought that he could not be able to do so, and subsequently we were proved right.
  It is not unusual for issues to change. I remember many Conservatives being violently against the National Health Scheme, but when they found that it was becoming popular—[Interruption.] Yes. they voted on Second and Third Reading against the principle.
  Sir Robin Turton: That is quite untrue. The Conservative Party tabled a reasoned Amendment drawing attention to some of the weaknesses in that scheme. The Conservative Party did not oppose the National Health Scheme which was embodied in a White Paper by Sir Winston Churchill in the middle of the war.
  Mr. Lewis: The point is that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House change their minds, but nobody now seems a castigate either the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime Minister for introducing charges for teeth and spectacles and other health charges. The argument has been that the economic siutation has changed and therefore circumstances have changed. It is always said that they are good reasons for acting in a certain way.
  It may be that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends are now saying that circumstances in 1972 are different from those which obtained in 1967. At the moment the present Government do not

  1171
  seem even to be able to negotiate with the miners. My right hon. and hon. Friends have been able to prove on the facts and figures that the Conservative Government in this instance, as in most other things, have made a complete hash of things. In the Cockney vernacular they have made a mess of it. But having got this far and committed themselves, they have not the honesty and decency to admit they have made a mistake. It would he far better for them to say "We have now changed our minds". This is even more important when new evidence comes along, and there has indeed been some new evidence in the last few years.
  I am amazed at some of my hon. Friends. I heard one on the radio programme "World at One" shedding crocodile tears that we were making him do something against his conscience. It is amazing the number of times I have had to do many things against my concience—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am glad that hon. Members opposite have corrected me. [An HON. MEMBER: "Start again, Arthur."] They have tried to make me do things against my conscience and always—my record is there for all to see—I have not worried and have voted for what I believed. And often I voted against my own Government, as I have done consistently on this particular issue. I voted against my own Government because I believed they were wrong, as I believe the present Government are wrong. I voted consistently against health charges, and I have voted in support of my party's policy as laid down as its conferences.
  The Liberals were the only people at the last election who said they, come what may, would go into the Common Market. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister gave a solemn pledge, not once but dozens of times, that he would not go in unless he had the wholehearted consent of the people and of Parliament.
  Mr. Marten: Full-hearted consent.
  Mr. Lewis: I am grateful for the correction. Can anybody say that we have had the full-hearted, wholehearted or absolute consent of Parliament and the people on this issue? Of course, we cannot. Did any party, other than the Liberals, say they would go in on any condition? No, it was only the Liberals.
  Mr. David Steel: No, we did not.
  Mr. Lewis: The Liberals know what happened to them. They lost a number of seats—[An HON. MEMBER: "So did Labour."] We lost a number of seats because we did not clearly say that we were wholeheartedly against entry. If we had been definite and said that we were wholeheartedly against entry, we would have gained more seats. I am sorry we did not do that.
  We are now being asked in the Ways and Means Resolution to allow some bureaucratic organisation in Brussels, to which none of us will be elected—
  Mr. Steel: We might be appointed.
  Mr. Lewis: No, we will not. The usual supporters of bureaucracy will be appointed only if they are good yes-men. They will be appointed with no power to alter or amend. The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde, who seems to know all about parliamentary procedure, at least should have had the courtesy to wait to hear the speech of the hon. Member who followed him.
  Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order—
  Mr. Lewis: It cannot be a point of order, because the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) is about to explain the absence of his hon. Friend. No doubt the hon. Gentleman was about to excuse his hon. and learned Friend's absence by saying that he has gone to a Committee. For all I know he may be going to Europe on a Committee and will not be able to return to deal with the debate. He would be one of the permanent absentees to whom I referred earlier in regard to one of my hon. Friends, who is one of the permanent absentees in Europe. Those absentees will have no power to alter or amend any of the rules and regulations laid down by the Council of Ministers.
  Indeed, I recollect bringing in a 3 ft. pile of rules and regulations on the secondary legislation. It took me about 12 months to get the Government to get them presented. It will take 12 months to look through them, let alone to study them to know them. I challenged the Minister then and I challenge him now. Will he give me an assurance—which he cannot and will not—that we can alter or amend

  1173
  any one full stop or comma in any one of those rules and regulations? Is it possible for this House to make any alteration or amendment in any way, shape or form in some 1,500 rules and regulations which affect the lives and well-being of every man, woman and child in this country?
  No Member of this House, from the Prime Minister down, has discussed them. It was not until quite recently that we ever saw them. I spoke to a prominent Cabinet Minister when they were issued. I said, "I want to study these rules and regulations. Have you seen them?" He said, "Have I seen them—?" I will not use his non-Parliamentary language. I will say, "No, of course I have not seen them. The first time I saw them was when you got them." I said," So you do not know what is in them? He said, "I do not know what is in them. I have never seen them." So I said, "Then none of the Cabinet has seen them?" He said, "Of course we have not seen them." This is before we go into the Market. They are—
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: They are the law.
  Mr. Lewis: That is right; they are the law. We cannot alter or amend any of them.
  Now we have the Ways and Means Resolution. I agree with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that it will not go through because the people of this country will start screaming on this matter. If the British people are not allowed to bring forward their views, as the Prime Minister said, to give their wholehearted consent, then there will be a scream and the Government will not get these matters through.
  Even if the Bill goes through, what do we find? We find that money and taxation will be raised in Brussels by some bureaucrats. Some will come from Germany which, by the way, I suggest has not got the history of the greatest of democratic traditions over the years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Really."] Really, it is true. Italy is not the country of the greatest democratic traditions over the years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh dear."] More than "Oh dear". It is true.
  1174
  France, of course, has not got the greatest of historical democratic traditions.
  Mr. Adley: That is a racialist argument.
  Mr. Lewis: No, it is not. I am coming back to this point. I am speaking up for this House of Commons for which perhaps the Conservative Party has not much care, but I have. I am proud of the fact that I can and do get up here and attack and query and question Ministers. I can get up and make myself awkward, which I do. I can get up and say that I do not want to see this legislation go through. I may or may not succeed, but at least I have the opportunity.
  If the Ways and Means Resolution goes through, what happens? I am then told, "You cannot do anything about this. This was agreed on 22nd February and it is now part of the Act." If some bureaucrat in Brussels decides that the 1 per cent. value-added tax shall go up to 5 per cent. and our Ministers. knowing how they give way under pressure, which they do, then agree, whether it is in the interests of Britain or not—I do not think that they often know what is in the interests of Britain—they then come back to this House and we are told. "We have agreed to a 5 per cent. value-added tax. You may discuss it, you may say just what you like, but you are not allowed to vote against it. You are not allowed to alter or amend it. because this has been agreed by the Council of Ministers in Brussels."
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman, after about 20 minutes, has reached the Ways and Means Resolution. His first proposition on the Resolution is totally wrong. In those circumstances the House would indeed vote on it under the procedure which I have already explained in my speech.
  Mr. Lewis: Yes, we can vote on it, but the vote would be non-effective because the Council of Ministers has agreed and we, through our Minister, would have agreed to it. We would have no power to upset a decision which had been arrived at by the Council of Ministers unless our Minister used the veto.
  Mr. Patrick Jerkin: The hon. Gentleman is again quite wrong. That charge could not affect people in this country

  1175
  until this House had voted on it, and it would be ineffective regarding any obligation which we might have towards the Community. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that, because that is the position.
  Mr. Lewis: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will discuss this matter with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, because he has given me different information from that which I received from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I asked the Chancellor of the Duchy whether the 1,500 rules and regulations which have already been agreed can be altered. He said that they could not be altered because, once the Council of Ministers has come to a decision, unless we, in our national interest, have said that we will not accept it and use the veto, it becomes the policy of the Council of Ministers and becomes a regulation laid down by Brussels. If it becomes a regulation it then becomes operative. If the hon. Gentleman is right—I hope that he is—it means that we can alter the 1,500 rules and regulations which have been agreed. Can we alter any of them?
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I hesitate to intervene again in the hon. Gentleman's speech. However, he has chosen a matter to which I devoted a considerable part of my speech about "own resources", where a payment to the Community is to form part of the Community's own resources. That could only be altered from the position as it now stands under the decision of 21st April, 1970, by an amendment or a new decision which would require the Government to come back to this House and get an affirmative vote on it.
  Mr. Lewis: That does not help at all. The Financial Secretary has not answered the straight question which I asked. Will he listen? He has interrupted me twice and I listened to him. I will ignore him. I will not trouble him. I am saying that he has not helped at all. Will he now listen and answer my straight question? Factually this is not in dispute. We have about 1,500, give or take 200 or 300, rules and regulations which have been agreed by the Council of Ministers in Brussels. Is that correct? We are not allowed to alter or amend in any way,
  1176
  shape or form those 1,500 rules and regulations. Is that true or not? I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. Is it true or not? Will he answer the question?
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: With respect, we are on the Ways and Means Resolution which talks about the particular kinds of—[Interruption.] To be fair, I think it is right that we should confine our attention to matters which are in order on the Resolution. I am not trying to dodge anything. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that this position has been made abundantly clear time and again. The regulations which are in force at the time when this country accedes, except in so far as they have been derogated from the terms negotiated, which have been spelt out, will be binding on this country.
  Mr. Lewis: It took the Financial Secretary about 20 or 30 words to say "Yes". I am right. They are not alterable or amendable in any way, shape or form. Therefore, the short answer is yes, we cannot alter or amend them.
  The reason that we cannot alter or amend the rules and regulations is simple. The Council of Ministers has already agreed them in our absence because we were not members. My right hon. Friend will probably help me if the Minister will not. Will the hon. Gentleman help me by either agreeing or disagreeing that if, as can and will be the case, we join the Six become the Ten, and all the Ten within the Council of Ministers agree to some rule or regulation, whatever it may be, with their agreeing—when I say "their" I do not mean Parliament; I mean our Minister, whoever he may be at the time—that rule and regulation becomes legally binding then, as now, as in the future, on the national parliaments of the Ten? We can debate it but we cannot amend it.
  If that is the proposition, if that is what the Ways and Means Resolution means, I and every other hon. Member will have to agree with a Minister, good or bad, from the Labour side or the Conservative—but never from the Liberal Party which is always absent. The Minister will come back to report to us and will say, "There it is boys and girls. You have had it. You can say what you like and do what you like and express your opinions, but at the end of the day it is

  1177
  agreed—signed, sealed and settled". That is not democracy and it is not securing the wholehearted and full-hearted consent of the people in the country and Parliament. I will not accept this because I believe I am speaking for the people of this country, irrespective of their political views. They rightly believe that if they want to question a Minister they can. If they want to raise an issue, or if they want their Member of Parliament to raise an issue and, by a democratic vote, they can persuade the House of Commons to support it, they can expect the Minister to accept it or to give a good reason why he does not. Eventually the will of the House will and does prevail.
  I see my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), the future Leader of the House, is present. I have worked with him on many occasions for many years. He will agree that we carried out a wonderful exercise on the reform of the House of Lords. There, both the Government and the Opposition agreed on what they wanted to do. But the House of Commons did not want it. The Government believed that everything was signed, sealed and settled and the noble Peers thought it was in the bag. But the House of Commons did not agree and they did not get away with it.
  Another instance, which I relate against my own party, concerned the matter of industrial strife. Here both sides worked together to push a proposal through. But, by debate and argument in the House and by listening to the views of our supporters in the country, we found that the people and our party did not want this proposal to be passed. Of course, it was defeated.
  The point I am seeking to make is that if we now agree to this Money Resolution we will not be able to exercise our right as we did on these previous occasions. The Financial Secretary has, by his interjection confirmed, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), that we could argue until we were blue in the face and bring forward all the problems and difficulties of our constituents but without being able to change any decision. Hon. Members here with northern constituences have the problem of depressed areas and unemployment. At the moment they can argue and discuss these matters. But the Minister will
  1178
  be able to return from Brussels with an agreement on such matters which is not amendable.
  There are defects even on the positive side. Suppose that eventually social security benefits were harmonised and there was harmonisation in payments to old-age pensioners and the sick and disabled, as could well happen. The Minister might return from the Council of Ministers with an agreement to pay old-age pensioners an extra £1 a week. I might not want to vote against that, but I might say that the figure ought to be £2 a week because the cost of living had risen so much as a result of joining the Common Market. I might want £3 a week and I might carry the support of a majority of hon. Members from both sides. But if we wanted to propose an Amendment the Table and the Speaker would say that we could not because the agreement was not amendable. That is not democracy, and it is not giving any opportunity to the people of this country to have their wishes carried out.
  The Government are against a referendum on entry into the Common Market, as is the Labour Party. But let us suppose we had a referendum or a gallup poll that old-age pensioners should be paid perhaps £3 or even £5 a week more, or perhaps should be given a 25 per cent. increase like the miners. They could be given unanimous support in the country and hon. Members could be urged by their constituents to press for such an increase. But they would be unable to do so, because a Minister, not appointed by the House of Commons or the Prime Minister, had entered into a legally-binding agreement in Brussels for an increase of £1. This is not good enough and as long as I have breath in my body and the opportunity I shall consistently oppose any of these steps that are being taken to deprive the House of Commons of its historical right to criticise, question and vote against the Executive and the Ministers who represent it.
  7.9 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The two Resolutions which are before the House are extremely remarkable and indeed unprecedented in their character. This unprecedented character corresponds with the unprecedented constitutional change which is—by common agreement, I think—implicit

  1179
  in the Bill which is necessary for the ratification of our accession to the Community. The implication of the Resolutions became even clearer as we listened to the very careful and clear exposition of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who certainly did not endeavour to dodge any of the meanings.
  I do not think the House would be worthy of itself if it were not to address itself to the Resolutions and what they mean without attempting to ride off on the basis that these matters should have been understood or foreseen when negotiations were begun in 1961, or in 1967, or when a White Paper was published or debated at some subsequent time. The fact is that it is only now that the House is being specifically asked to divest itself of exclusive powers which it has hitherto had. We cannot say "This is a triviality, because we all understood from a previous White Paper that this would be the consequence if we were to agree to the very legislation which is now before the House".
  That would be an intolerable argument in a circle. It would be the more intolerable in view of the fact that accession to the Community on these terms and with these implications was not an issue which was placed before the country at the last General Election. It is true that the public were awakening in the last year or two before the General Election to the implications of British accession, if it should ever happen. That is no doubt the reason why many hon. Members at the Election—certainly in terms of the manifesto of my party—declined to treat membership of the Community as an issue, saying simply that the sole commitment was negotiation and whatever might he implicit in an agreement, if it ever occurred, and in legislation, if it was ever presented to the House, would emerge later. What no one can argue is that these propositions were put to the electorate or that their consent was obtained for them. It is really an insult—I was going to say to the House, but, I say, to ourselves—not to recognise that we are now required to address ourselves to these propositions as they stand, without regard to anything that may have gone before.
  The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) was quite right to do a con
  1180
  siderable amount of research into what might be the quantitative significance of the taxation which the Resolutions would allow to be imposed. For one of the unique characteristics of the Resolutions is that they are entirely at large. Hitherto it has been a grave matter for complaint when a Ways and Means Resolution has been placed before the House without some limitation, either implicit or stated, upon the total amount of taxation which could be raised as a result of it.
  I recall, for example, when the Labour Government introduced their ill-fated Bill setting up the Land Commission, over which I for one have shed no tears of mourning. When it had received its Second Reading the House proceeded to consider the Ways and Means Resolution, and I should like to recall what was said on that occasion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who I think all will agree is one of the best authorities in the House upon our financial rules and procedures. He said:
  "…the historic Committee of Ways and Means"—
  we were then, of course, under the old procedure, in Committee—
  "has to decide whether the right hon. Gentleman should be allowed to go ahead with a further proposal for the taxation of the people. This goes back for centuries; that this Committee is not prepared to grant the right hon. Gentleman such authority unless he is prepared to give to this Committee his own best calculation of what that burden is to be…"
  My right hon. Friend was not the only right hon. Gentleman who made that point in the course of that debate. On the then Opposition Front Bench it was no other than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who was in charge of our handling of the Bill. He said—and I respectfully echo what he said:
  "We…think it quite wrong that we should be asked to make provision of this kind for taxation of the subject with no limit at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1966; Vol 728, c. 748–50.]
  That, in quantitative terms—I quite understand the qualitative qualifications which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary explained—is exactly what we are asked to do once and for all, and never return to the matter again in terms of a

  1181
  Ways and Means Resolution: to make provision
  "for taxation of the subject with no limit at all."
  Under the forms of taxation—and they are very wide—which this Resolution authorises, there is literally no limit, in amount of time, to the future taxation which can be raised. That in itself illustrates and proves how profoundly decisive a step the House is asked to take in this legislation, a step which is clarified and illuminated by the Resolution.
  That future taxation will be raised without the normal parliamentary procedures. It will be raised without any further Ways and Means Resolutions, and it will be applied and spent without any of the procedures of vote or of appropriation. So, within this scope, the taxation of the people, without limit of amount, is taken out of the control of this House, except that, naturally, the House can register its views by Motion from time to time. There can be no doubt about that; but we have not evolved an elaborate procedure, and constantly improved it over the centuries, in order to be told: "It will be just as good if you have a Motion occasionally, should there be anything you wish to raise."
  The fact of these procedures having to be gone through whenever there is an increase in the burden on the subject or whenever there is new expenditure, ensures that information is given to the House in due and proper form; it also ensures that the House not merely has an opportunity to go through a certain known series of motions but is obliged to do so. That is control in a true sense, in a sense quite different from the ghost of control which is the most that is implied by the permission to have a debate from time to time about how the Community is getting on and what sort of sums are going from this country to be expended by the Community.
  The Resolution is also bad in form, and the form is very relevant to the content and to the heart of the matter. I believe it is bad in form in that it wraps up in one single sentence all the forms of taxation which it authorises. The House will realise that at the time of the Finance Bill, when new taxation is being introduced and when changes in taxation are made, it is necessary that every single
  1182
  separate change, increase or innovation in taxation shall be authorised by a Resolution. Nothing of this sort happens here. The whole thing is wrapped up in the single expression, "any charge to taxation of those Communities."
  Once again my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames comes from the past—for he is nearly noble by now—to speak in the columns of HANSARD in my support. Even with a Measure so relatively simple as the Land Commission Bill, with the betterment levies, he believed that there was little or no precedent for
  "a Bill imposing major taxation of this kind"
  which was
  "not based on a Ways and Means Resolution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 31st January, 1966; Vol. 723, c. 837.]
  I have no intention in any way of challenging the Ruling which the Chair gave on the 15th of this month. Nevertheless it is a remarkable fact that this kind of elaboration, increase and alteration in taxation, when we have had it in the past, has been authorised only as a result of a series of Resolutions, each of which the House could concentrate upon and take separately. So it is incumbent upon us to unravel as best we can what lies concealed in that omnibus—I almost said "ominous "—phrase," any charge to taxation of those Communities."
  On referring to the Bill we ascertain, first, that we are dealing with the customs under Clause 5, with the levies under Clause 6, and with the amounts to be raised by analogy of levies for use of the Sugar Board under Clause 7. I hope I understood my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary rightly when he said that, so far as this Bill is concerned, those are all the "charges to taxation of those Communities" which are authorised by this Resolution. On the assumption that that is so, he then went on and made a very important communication to the House. He said that if there is in future to be an addition to the forms of direct Community taxation—for example, if there is to be an addition to what will become "own resources", in the jargon of the Community—it will be necessary for the House to act under Clause 1(3).
  But if one looks at Clause 1(3) one finds not a financial procedure but simply the recognition that such and such

  1183
  a treaty is to be one of the treaties for the purpose of the Bill. So merely by recognising the fact that a new agreement, an additional agreement, has been made in Brussels, we shall automatically and without further financial procedures—unless we have to amend an existing Finance Act, as in the case of V.A.T. because of the quality of the tax is altered—apart from that exception, we shall find that automatically an addition has been made to the burden upon the subject, and that new taxation is in force without going through any of the valves which the House has established for that purpose.
  Mr. English: The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that in the part of the Bill upon which he quoted the Financial Secretary, it does not even have to be a treaty of the Communities; it can be any treaty if Her Majesty, by Order in Council, declares it shall be regarded as such under that procedure; and that is conclusive in law.
  Mr. Powell: Perhaps the hon. Member could have even gone further and pointed out that under the Bill what is not a treaty can be regarded as a treaty if an Order in Council so proposes and this House passes it. Thus any sort of agreement which is treated by Order in Council as a treaty for the purpose of the Bill can, unless a qualitative alteration in our existing tax law is requisite, automatically and without further financial proceedings increase taxation.
  Then there is another aspect, which in this case is separately spelt out in paragraph (b) of the Ways and Means Resolution, which is not without its importance. It is one of the historic rules of this House that a Resolution is required not only for increasing the burden upon the subject but for permitting the receipt by Ministers of the Crown of sums which have not been raised in taxation, this being one of the methods by which this House has maintained a grip upon all the finance which was at the disposal of ministers. It has not been permissible, without specific resolution, for moneys to be received except by passing through the gateway of a Resolution.
  Thus, in future, the taxation will take place without the customary procedures; the expenditure will take place without those procedures; and the appropriation
  1184
  in aid, if I may import that phrase, will take place without those procedures. We are abrogating, for the purposes of Community taxation and Community expenditure, the entire apparatus of financial control which the House has erected and maintained.
  I was glad to hear from my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that even if the Resolution is passed in its present form, it will nevertheless be possible for the House in Committee to consider, in detail and fully, whether the procedure for payments into and out of the Consolidated Fund should not nevertheless be altered and the normal procedure reinstated. I assume that my hon. Friend made that statement upon advice and after consultation with the Chair. It is certainly a matter of satisfaction to know that we are not this evening parting with this question of fundamental importance for the last time in our study of the Bill. Instead, this is the first occasion when this question is opened and we can follow it up when we come to the Bill's Clauses. Nevertheless it would be far better that the House should mark its view at this stage rather than accept Resolutions which in themselves represent the virtual supersession of our financial procedures and controls.
  In this I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends, whatever may be their own view as to the advantage or otherwise of this country acceding to the Community, because I believe that we have before us a House of Commons matter which can be considered, and without prejudice, even by those who differ upon the main point; for I am sure that there is none of my right hon. or hon. Friends—although he is not present, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) said this specifically—who would not wish the maximum scrutiny and control by this House, the maximum opportunity for debate, to be maintained.
  Therefore, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends not to view the decision upon these Resolutions as being a yea or nay to the Community but as being the first chance we shall have together, whatever is the ultimate outcome, to improve the opportunities of the House of Commons and to retain as much as possible of the control and scrutiny of the House of Commons over taxation and expenditure.

  1185
  In that connection, I follow up, briefly, some interesting remarks of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. My hon. Friend mentioned that our Expenditure Committee, even though payments were made not upon Votes but out of the Consolidated Fund, would nevertheless be able to address itself to those payments as if they had been payments made upon Votes of this House.
  I wonder if I might follow the implications of that statement a little further. When payments are made at present, whether by statutory authority out of the Consolidated Fund or, in the overwhelming majority of cases, by Vote and appropriation, the Committees of this House, from the Expenditure Committee right through to the Public Accounts Committee, are able to be seized of every aspect of the raising and spending of that money. Nothing is withdrawn from their power of control. They have power to send for persons and papers, and the Comptroller and Auditor General exercises a jealous audit over expenditures and reports accordingly.
  Hon. Members will wish to be clear whether what my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is saying is that this House will have the same opportunities of investigating and, as it were, auditing the expenditure of the moneys which are to be raised and charged on or paid into the Consolidated Fund under these Resolutions. I am sure that, if he can confirm that, he will relieve many anxieties. However, it raises a problem. For every expenditure which is now inquired into by any of the Committees of this House, there is a responsible Minister on the Treasury Bench who can be called to account. It is because of that that all these procedures exist and have their effectiveness. I find it difficult to understand as well as to imagine how a Minister on the Front Bench can take responsibility for the "own resources" of the Community and their expenditure in the way that Ministers have to take responsibility for the expenditures which this House has authorised hitherto. I find it difficult to understand and difficult to imagine how the procedures of audit and investigation which this House has extorted from the Executive and built up over the last three
  1186
  centuries can be applied to the European Economic Community.
  When my hon. Friend was speaking, it seemed to me that nothing less than that would really satisfy hon. Members on both sides of this House, whatever their opinions might be about the advantages or disadvantages of membership of the Community—
  Mr. Marten: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, there is one other aspect with regard to the Expenditure Committee. I asked my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary whether the Expenditure Committee could go over to Europe, and he said "Yes". That implies that the Committee could call for persons and papers. To what extent does our writ run in foreign countries to call for papers and persons?
  Mr. Jenkin: So that there is no doubt about this, I stress to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) that I did not say that at all. I said that it was a matter for the Chairman of the Committee and for the House to decide at the time.
  Mr. Marten Mr. Marten rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. We must not have too many interjections, one on top of another. I think that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) ought to be allowed to continue his speech.
  Mr. Marten: But if the Chairman of a Committee or Sub-Committee decided to do that, what power would he have to go and what power would he have to call for persons and papers? The answer is, none at all.
  Mr. Powell: Perhaps I could follow up the line of thought of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). I have the greatest respect for the powers and responsibilities of the Chairmen of Committees of this House. But the Chairman of a Committee cannot make a Minister on the Treasury Bench responsible for a matter over which Her Majesty's Government, though they may have a voice in it, do not have control, as they have control over all the financial matters which hitherto this House has

  1187
  investigated and over which this House has hitherto exercised control.
  I end upon that word "control". My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary used two expressions which I want to isolate. He spoke of the "theoretical control" of this House over expenditure which our existing procedures give us. He went on to say that "the reality has long since departed" from those procedures. This debate will be amply worthwhile if the House can bring home to the Government the fact that there is a profound misconception behind those statements.
  True, the forms of control are not used in the same way as they were 50 or 250 years ago. But the rights of control which are crystallised and enshrined in our financial procedures are still what gives this House the means, if and when it wishes, of calling the Executive to account; and calling to account runs the whole gamut from asking for an explanation to forcing the resignation of a Minister. Hon. Members who have been in this House any length of time can recall from their experience cases from one end of that spectrum to the other.
  The financial rights of this House which will have to be abrogated if Britain joins the Community and which are being prejudiced, far more than is necessary even for that purpose, by these Resolutions and this Bill are not a matter of theory or custom. They are of the essence of Ministerial responsibility to this House and of the responsibility of this House to the country. It is that fact which gives a central importance to this debate and to the votes in which the debate will end. I repeat that they are votes essentially open to all, whatever view they take of the expediency of British membership.
  7.38 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said that these were remarkable Resolutions. I agree with him. They are also unprecedented and, in my view, indefensible.
  The Financial Secretary made a remarkable speech. He admitted with what Mr. Stanley Baldwin once called "appalling frankness" that, whatever these Resolutions did, they would give power to the authorities of the Community to increase the whole existing range of E.E.C. taxes on the British
  1188
  public without any authority from or reference to this House.
  As the right hon. Gentleman has just shown, that is only one part of what we shall be doing if we pass these Resolutions. Equally remarkable were the arguments that the Financial Secretary advanced for making this sweeping surrender of parliamentary aunthority. The hon. Gentleman said that, if we were to join the Community, it was necessary for us to impair and damage the authority of Parliament in this way. In my view, that is a very strong argument for not joining the Community on these terms. Then he appeared to say that the forms of financial control by this House are all very well in theory but that they have lost all substance and practical effect. He inferred from that that we should not seek to re-establish the substance and reality but we should now get rid of the forms as being merely outworn relics of what this House used to do. That seems another incredible argument for giving away some of the essential authority of this Parliament.
  Thirdly, he argued that because, in his language, the Community was entitled to certain forms of finance and resources, it would be wholly inappropriate for this House to have any authority to amend or reject a proposal. In his view it is inappropriate for the House to have control over such matters. It is extraordinary that the Financial Secretary of any Government should use such arguments. I never expected to hear them used here or anywhere else.
  The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has rightly said that by this Resolution we would be abrogating the major part of the financial powers of Parliament. What he did not go on to do was to ask to whom are we surrendering these powers to tax the British people? At this point my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), in his most eloquent and convincing speech, fell into one error. It is a point on which a number of hon. Members are not wholly clear, even though the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) tells us that we have all understood the subject in every particular for many years. I am not sure that even he understood this point.
  My hon. Friend kept referring to the Council of Ministers and to the British

  1189
  Minister representing us on that Council as being the authority which takes decisions in all these cases involving taxation of the British people. It is much worse than that. It is not just the Council of Ministers which issues binding regulations and decisions imposing taxation on the subject. The Commission also has the power to do that. If hon. Members look through the famous 42 volumes, on which my right hon. Friend is an expert, they will find that a large number of these regulations and decisions are imposed not by the Council at all but by the Commission.
  We had another valuable admission of appalling frankness from the Solicitor-General in the Second Reading debate when he agreed that I was correct in saying that the Commission has the power to issue regulations, directives and decisions which are binding without any authority from any Ministers. It is worth emphasising that this Commission is appointed, not in any way elected. It is not responsible to the Council of Ministers or to any particular Government. This is the body with which we are dealing, as I am sure the Liberal Party was aware before making the decision it did the other night.
  This Commission has the power among other things, to impose taxation on all of us. The Financial Secretary said that it does not matter very much because it involved only a narrow area. He said twice that the area was so narrow that Parliament need not bother. As I understand, it includes all the agricultural levies—that is the imposition of food taxes on the population of Great Britain, which both the Liberal and Labour Parties have resisted for the last 100 years. That is a fairly wide area!
  In addition, there is the imposition of levies in the coal and steel industry. We have all learned in recent weeks that the coal industry is not exactly a narrow section of our national economy. Let us consider some of these volumes. Part 20 refers to beef and veal. The regulations are binding in their entirety and directly applicable to us all. Regulation 1025/68 of the Commission imposes levies on beef and veal. Regulation 1072/68 of the Commission fixes components for calculating the levy on certain frozen beef and veal; Regulation 642/69 of the Commission again imposes in effect taxes on the meat which our
  1190
  public would have to eat. I could go on for some time with that volume alone which gives details of the regulations of the Commission.
  Another volume deals with cereals and Regulation 156/67 of the Commission determines the prices and levies for cereals, flour and so on. That deals with bread which I would have thought was a fairly important element in the social and economic affairs of a modern community. Regulation 2574/67 determines refunds on cereals. It goes on with a whole series of regulations dealing with export subsidies and incidentally with what they call "the de-naturing of wheat", which means making it unfit for human consumption because there is too much to be sold at the exorbitant prices charged within the Commission. I could go on with this all evening. I turn next to the volume dealing with budgetary policy. Decision No. 2650/70 of the Commission determines the rate of the levies to be applied in the financial year 1971.
  That is what we would normally call taxation and it would be achieved by a Finance Bill. I could quote another 10 Resolutions of the Commission affecting levies on coal and steel. When the regulations are studied it will be seen that if we were members of the Community and we had received a report like the Wilberforce Report of last week it would, so far as I can see—and the Solicitor-General can tell me if I am wrong—have been quite impossible for the Government to accept and apply it. The levies on coal would be determined by the Commission. If the National Coal Board is not allowed to raise the price of coal and the Government are not allowed to pay a subsidy, I should like to know how the Wilberforce recommendations could have been applied.
  The same is true with sugar dealt with in No. 39 of the volumes. Regulation 537/68 of the Commission determines the levies on sugar. Another, 578/69, also determines levies on sugar and molasses with the obvious effect that that will have on the price of sugar. The same is true of the taxation of tobacco and various levies and premiums relating to tobacco.
  In addition to all the other criticisms, it is therefore vital to realise that what we are being asked to do on the evidence

  1191
  on the volumes which have been circulated and the statements made by the Financial Secretary is to hand over the powers of this House for taxing the British people and financial control over the expenditure of funds to a major extent not even to a Council of Ministers who are in some indirect sense responsible to this Parliament but to a Commission of officials who are in no way responsible to us or to the British electorate and in no real sense responsible to anyone. It seems almost incredible that any of us should wish to do this and even more incredible that we could be convinced by the arguments of the Financial Secretary this afternoon. I should be very surprised if the Government find anyone tonight sincerely voting for these Resolutions if they really understand what they mean.
  7.50 p.m.
  Sir Robin Turton: I think the House knows my views on this matter. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think that most of the issues which have been discussed, such as those discussed by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), can be discussed again in Committee. I want to confine myself rather to what I call procedural points in the hope that, however much we may differ about going into or not going into the Community, the Government may think over what is the best way of putting these problems to the House.
  The Way and Means Resolution, as the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said, is a complete innovation. The idea that the people of this country can be taxed and this House have no remedy at all nor any opportunity to put its view about a tax, whether it is an agricultural levy which reflects on the price of food or a Customs duty which may affect our relations with a country overseas, is quite foreign to this House. My right hon. Friends in the Government have to think how they can work this with the least breach of precedent.
  The Financial Secretary said that this happens to Customs duties and agricultural levies, but he gave me an assurance that it does not happen with V.A.T. I am sure that when he gave me that
  1192
  assurance he thought that he was giving me a correct answer, but I should like whoever winds up the debate to check whether it is absolutely right. I appreciate that in the next Budget and the next Finance Bill we shall deal with the imposition of V.A.T. I also know that in Brussels at the moment they are proceeding towards harmonisation of V.A.T. by a certain date. Whether in 1975 or 1978, it will be the law throughout the Community so that all members of the Community who have different coverage provisions will have to alter them. I want to know whether that particular part of V.A.T. will come under what I call the automatic procedure and not the procedure by Order.
  It strikes me that one of the strengths of the case made by the Financial Secretary when he was dealing with expenditure was in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). The Financial Secretary said that that can be dealt with by the Committee on expenditure. There is however, no Committee of this House that can deal with this taxation problem. In the 1970–71 Session the Select Committee on Procedure looked at this very great weakness in our present procedures. Very much on the strength of the evidence given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is at present Mr. Speaker, it recommended that there should be a Select Committee, or a select sub-committee, on taxation so that these matters could be inquired into.
  I remind the Government of that recommendation. Nothing has been done about it. It seems that if we are to have this complete innovation—which is a travesty of parliamentary proceedings—and taxes are to be imposed on the subject completely automatically, the Government ought at least to consider whether that recommendation should be adopted and that there should be a Select Committee on Taxation which would always be inquiring into changes being made or suggested and which would report to the House.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman go a step further? Will he ask, should the Government agree to his suggestion to set up a committee, if under the Rome Treaty and present E.E.C. rulings, we could have such a committee?
  Sir Robin Turton: The hon. Member has made a contribution to the debate. Now he has made another which I am sure that the Government will answer. I may deal with that point at the end of my observations.
  On the question of expenditure I can see the point that contributions to the European Investment Bank and that type of expenditure should come under the Consolidated Fund statutory procedure, just as at the moment the Civil List, salaries of judges and interest on the National Debt do, because that is the kind of expenditure we would not normally expect to be subject to debate. In the old days in Supply debates we did not expect that kind of question to be raised. But I should have thought that the agricultural contribution was expenditure of an entirely different nature about which the House should have complete information and power by vote to control.
  I was greatly encouraged by what the Financial Secretary said about how these matters could all be taken up and improved upon at a later stage. It would appear that if one were to alter the arrangement proposed in Clause 2 one could take out the agricultural contribution and have it dealt with by the time-honoured methods by which we normally authorise expenditure. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said that this contribution is expenditure which the Committee on Expenditure would be able to look at. The House will realise that that Committee has to examine the five-year forward look. I hope that whoever winds up the debate will inform us whether into the five-year forward look the Treasury expects to put our obligations under the E.E.C. It is very important, if the House is to have proper knowledge and control of this expenditure, that it should be put quite clearly so that the House can understand it.
  On the point made by the hon. Member for West Ham, North, the weakness of the Treaty of Accession is that, unlike nearly every other member of the Six, in our treaty we did not make special provision for parliamentary proceedings. I have with me Mr. Michael Niblock's book on "National Parliaments in Community Decision-making". He says that all these countries put in special provisions for dealing with their Parliaments,
  1194
  particularly in Germany, where the Bundestag had a special protocol for this purpose. Germany went in for a rather fruitless attempt to control the E.E.C. by the "Council of Elders for Integration", which, unfortunately for a council of elders, had a very short life.
  In his book Mr. Niblock said:
  "Those responsible for the initiative in this matter appear to have two prime concerns in mind: first, they were anxious about the clearly adverse consequences which the process of integration was having on the system of democratic government in West Germany as in other Community countries."
  If anything, he is a pro-Marketeer. This is his considered opinion. The second thing he mentioned was that they sought
  "greater co-ordination between the various actions and initiatives which were being taken in the Bundestag in relation to Community affairs."
  Sad to relate, the Council of Elders died a natural death.
  But the Bundestag has argued and debated with and controlled the Commission on the variable cereal levies. For two years, it fought that and by its committees it stopped it. Some of the Parliaments have attacked the gross extravagance of the Agricultural Fund. Whatever view one takes—whether one is against joining or, like some of my hon. Friends, all in favour—one must demand that this Parliament should have as much control as, perhaps even greater control than, those other members of the Community.
  Therefore, I beg my right hon. and learned Friend, who has as much love and respect for Parliament as I have, to take this to heart and, in the weeks before we reach that part of the Bill, think how we can ensure proper parliamentary control. It must be something rather greater than the pre-legislation committee which was thrown at us last week. Of course it is a good thing to see draft regulations, but this Chamber must have the power to try to say, "No".
  As with my illustration of the ground-nuts debate, one can try to reduce a Vote because one believes that there has been mismanagement and extravagance. This is what we are here for. It is because I believe that this is not achieved by these Resolutions that I cannot support them in the Lobby tonight, although I can at least wait and see what will happen.
  8.05 p.m.
  Mr. Michael English: Before coming to my Amendment, which Mr. Speaker has been kind enough to call, I cannot refrain from a comment upon the remarks of the Financial Secretary. He went into the great technicalities of the difference between the Consolidated Fund and the annual Vote and said that, because the direct procedures of the House were unsatisfactory, in his view, an Expenditure Committee system had been created.
  That was one of the reasons for the creation of the Expenditure Committee, but the hon. Gentleman never mentioned that that Committee does not discuss expenditure out of the Consolidated Fund. The basic simple difference between the Consolidated Fund expenditure and the annual Vote expenditure is whether we discuss it. We do not annually discuss the Queen's expenditure, for instance.
  If the hon. Gentleman is now enunciating the theory that the Expenditure Committee should discuss expenditure from the Consolidated Fund, I will be most pleased to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who I am sure will be fascinated to realise that he has found yet another channel for discussing the Civil List. He was on the Estimates Committee and the Expenditure Committee for many years and came off only recently. I am sure he would immediately go back on once this news was given to him, and I should be glad to offer him the seat which he used to have and which I now have. But we do not discuss expenditure out of the Consolidated Fund. We do not discuss the Queen and the Civil List or the judges and their activities annually. There are things that we do not discuss and there are things that we do discuss.
  We discuss education, defence, agriculture and a host of other things. No one says that we will end subsidies to agriculture, stop paying for defence or stop educating children merely because we discuss a matter annually. There is nothing anti-European in saying that we should discuss this matter annually as well.
  The German Bundestag not only discusses these matters annually but requires its Government to report on them annually and, just in case the report is
  1196
  inaccurate, it arranges to have an observer from its upper house, the Bundesrat, present in the Council of Ministers of the E.E.C.—a right which, I am glad to note, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster felt it was not necessary to gain for Britain. He obviously thought that we should have fewer rights than the Germans.
  It is primarily some matters of the law that I wish to discuss today. I must make it clear to many hon. Members who are making the assumption that they are discussing matters which will be dealt with in the usual ways of English law that they are not. It is often said that the Continental system is a Roman law system. It has been equally often said by hon. Gentlemen who are in favour of our joining the Common Market that there is very little difficulty in reconciling the Roman law systems with the English law system.
  I agree, so long as one is speaking of what is called the civil law. But there is one feature of a Roman law system which is quite different: that is, in the Roman law description, a system of public law. It does not make the assumption that any person can enforce any piece of the law against any other person or the assumption, which is made in English law, that any person can enforce the law by going to court.
  Let me give two examples of what can be done in English law. There is the famous case in law of Bowles v. The Bank of England early in this century when an individual said "A mere Resolutiton of the House of Commons has caused me to suffer taxation. This is illegal." He produced cases to prove that the House of Commons alone could not by such a Resolution impose taxation. As a result, Parliament had to pass an Act to allow this House to do so for a very short period of six months when we pass a Budget. Another example is that of A. P. Herbert, who prosecuted the House of Commons for a breach of the licensing laws because he wanted to prove that the House was in breach of those laws.
  Any individual can do this but one cannot necessarily do it in a European State, because it is not 1,000 years of British history but 2,000 years of Roman law which includes the history of several

  1197
  authoritarian empires—the Roman, German and French empires and the Russian empire too, for that matter. That is exactly what has, as a result, impinged into this treaty.
  We have all been deeply concerned because by these treaties and the Bill implementing them there is to be imposed upon us a system of law which, as the Solicitor-General said, is self-executing. It certainly is. Not only is it self-executing but there is a body there to execute it. The Commission is given legal personality and may impose upon any individual citizen any item of this law; but the reverse is not true and that is the difference, because we have here a system in which not all the law is enforceable by everyone. This will be extremely important.
  I shall go into the details during the Committee stage but there are four reasons why proceedings may not be brought by anyone. Generally speaking, proceedings cannot be brought by individuals unless it is a matter of individual and direct concern to them. Secondly, proceedings may not be brought against anyone. One cannot, for example, bring any proceedings at all against the Assembly of the Community. Thirdly, the court of the Community does not always have jurisdiction to deal with particular types of case. Fourthly, that court finally, even if it has jurisdiction, may not always be able to enforce its decision. For example, it may decide till the cows come home that France, Germany or some other member was in breach of the law but it would have no means of enforcement in theory or in practice, unlike the Supreme Court of the United States which can enforce the law even against a State of the United States. It is, therefore, a strange and very theoretical system of law. One should bear that in mind when discussing this or any other subject.
  One is literally saying that if the Community acts unlawfully, if it creates a tax which is unlawful under the organisation of the Community, it is not necessarily true that an individual can say, as Bowles once said—although a member State could—"I am sorry, you are trying to take taxation from me which is contrary to your own system of law 'There is no means by which that can be done
  1198
  because one would be proving that the State was acting illegally, which in English law one can do.
  I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, at end add:
  Provided that nothing in this Resolution shall authorise any charge unless it has also been approved by the Assembly of those Communities.
  In moving my Amendment I am afraid I wish to make a very substantial criticism of the Leader of the House. I warned him that I might be doing this. He has said he believes
  "that this House has all the necessary documents for it to proceed to a Second Reading of the Bill next week."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1972; Vol. 830, c. 1583.]
  That may or may not be true. It is certainly not true that the House has all the necessary documents to proceed to this Motion or the Committee stage. I will explain why.
  The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir R. Turton) quoted from Mr. Niblock's book, "The E.E.C. National Parliaments and Community Decision-making". Many of us are forced to do so. I wish to refer to what has been the principal argument between the Council and the Assembly in the whole history of the European Communities. Nowhere has that argument been translated into English for us, yet it is highly relevant to this subject.
  If in the rest of these discussions I quote from an unofficial publication, it is for the simple reason that the Assembly resolutions relevant to the topic have not been translated by the Foreign Office and made available to us. I realise the difficulties of translating all these documents and the time that would take, but the Government should have realised that that would take a long time. To quote from Mr. Niblock's book, in October, 1969, the European Commission made various proposals for budgetary procedures to deal with these very subjects with which we are dealing. The proposals were not greatly liked then by the Assembly because they largely left the Assembly of the European Community out of the problem. They said "No. Basically this is a matter for the Council of Ministers", and the Commission revised its proposal accordingly. It agreed that the Assembly should have a power such as we have.

  1199
  The whole object of my Amendment is that if we are to give powers away from this House, from this elected legislative assembly, let us at least give them to another assembly of elected legislators rather than simply to a Council of Ministers, a council of members of the Executives of various States. The Council in December, 1969, agreed to give the Assembly powers from 1st January, 1975, but then excluded 95 per cent, of the total expenditure of the Community from its jurisdiction. All that the Council allowed it to do was roughly to decide its own expenditure, the expenditure as it were of its own officers—and the French disagreed even to that.
  In February, 1970, the Assembly threatened to recommend to every Parliament that it should not even ratify the treaty laws and decisions which have been quoted today. The Assembly said that
  "If the fundamental decisions defined on 10th December, 1969, were not accepted by the Council, finding itself thus unable to advise national Parliaments to ratify the proposals which are submitted to them, it would use all means at its disposal to make sure that those decisions are respected."
  In February, 1970, the Council of Ministers limited the Assembly. It arrived at a very complex formula. It even limited the power of the Assembly over the 5 per cent. that it had been left power to discuss and approve, and it started to compile that famous document, the Treaty of Luxembourg. From March, 1970, however, when it was still discussing it, the Council still refused to interpret what the system, by then an almost complete document, meant. The President of the Council gave an interpretation, personally as he put it, that the Council of Ministers finally decided the budget. In April, 1970, the Luxembourg Treaty was signed and in May, 1970, the Assembly arrived at a resolution which is the basis of my Amendment. The Council invited the national Parliaments that were about to ratify the Treaty of Luxembourg
  "to take account of the attitude formulated by the European Parliament…and defend the need to guarantee real Parliamentary control over the common resources."
  That is precisely the point of my Amendment.
  Let me say why the issue is a somewhat confusing one. Let me take Article
  1200
  203 of the Treaty of Rome as amended by the Treaty of Luxembourg. I hope that the Minister who is assiduously taking notes will realise that I am not referring to the temporary procedure of Article 203a. I am aware of that but, for the sake of simplicity and the time of the House, I am talking of the permanent procedure which is due to start on 1st January, 1975.
  The first paragraph of Article 203 states that the financial year is the calendar year. That is highly sensible. The second paragraph says that
  "Each institution of the Community shall before 1st July draw up its estimates of expenditure and that the Commission shall consolidate those estimates into a preliminary draft budget and shall attach thereto an opinion which may contain different estimates."
  By the third paragraph the Commission is to
  "…place the preliminary draft budget before the Council not later than 1st September.…The Council shall…establish the draft budget and forward it to the Assembly."
  Then we come to the fourth paragraph where the confusion begins. It says:
  "The draft budget shall be placed before the Assembly not later than 5th October of the year preceding that in which the budget is to be implemented. The Assembly shall have the right to amend the draft budget, acting by a majority of its members, and to propose to the Council, acting by an absolute majority of the votes cast, modifications to the draft budget relating to expenditure necessarily resulting from this Treaty or from acts adopted in accordance therewith. If, within 45 days of the draft budget being placed before it…the Assembly has adopted amendments or proposed modifications, the draft budget together with the amendments or proposed modifications shall be forwarded to the Council."
  Hon. Members will note that for some reason there is a difference between amendments and proposed modifications. It is not entirely clear what that difference is.
  The fifth paragraph is a little clearer. It states:
  "The Council may…modify any of the amendments adopted by the Assembly and shall pronounce…on the modifications proposed by the latter."
  Again, there is the same distinction. Now the Council can modify amendments and pronounce upon modifications.
  "If, within fifteen days…the Council has modified one or more of the amendments adopted by the Assembly or has not accepted the modifications proposed by the latter, the

  1201
  draft budget shall again be forwarded to the Assembly."
  The real obscurity comes in paragraph 6:
  "Within fifteen days of the draft budget being placed before it, the Assembly, which shall have been notified of the action taken on its proposed modifications"—
  not its amendments, although hitherto there has been a distinction between modifications and amendments—
  "shall act, by a majority of its members and three-fifths of the votes cast, on the modifications to its amendments made by the Council and shall adopt the budget accordingly. If within this period the Assembly has not acted the budget shall be deemed to be finally adopted."
  The paragraph ends by stating that when the procedure provided for has been completed, the President of the Assembly shall declare that the budget has been finally adopted.
  If hon. Members find themselves a little confused by all that, I assure them that they are not unique. I assure them also that the Assembly's interpretation is that the final authority that is to adopt the budget is the Assembly. The Commission of the European Communities agrees with the Assembly. When I say that the Assembly says that, I mean the Assembly unanimously. I do not mean the Socialist group only. I mean as well the Liberal group, the Christian Democrats who might be described as the Conservative group and, finally, the most Conservative of all, the Gaullists in the Assembly. But the Council of Ministers does not agree with the Assembly, not because five of them do not but merely because one of them does not, namely, France. The Council of Ministers officially, therefore, in so far as it has made a statement through M. Harmel, who was then its President, believes it is the final authority to adopt the budget. For that reason, the Assembly recommended that parliamentarians throughout Europe should, in ratifying the Treaty of Luxembourg, make the matter clear beyond doubt.
  What I am asking the Government by the Amendment is whether they agree with every party in Europe as represented in the Assembly, and five out of six members of the Community's Governments, that that is the correct interpretation, or do they agree with the French goods on a substantial scale.
  1202
  It is extremely important to ascertain whether we are handing over these powers to a group of executive politicians or to a group of legislative politicians in Europe. If we are to hand over the powers, most people who are pro-European, as well as those against entry into Europe, would prefer the latter. This matter is extremely important and, in relation to the technical modification I have mentioned about the period from now to 1975, I suggest that the Government could accept my Amendment at least in principle, because that is what is believed by the overwhelming majority of Europeans in Europe as well as the overwhelming majority of pro-Europeans in this House and also by those who do not wish Britain to go into the Common Market. If we do go in, let us go in as democrats and not put ourselves into an authoritarian position.
  I explained earlier in reference to the enforceability of parts of the Treaty of Rome the situation which arises from the nature of the Bill. If the Government want not merely to bind this Parliament hand and foot but also to shackle it, at least let us keep the key to the shackles and not throw it away.
  8.27 p.m.
  Mr. John Loveridge: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has said that in his opinion if we are to give away powers from this House or pass money out of our control we should do so to an assembly of politicians rather than to a group of executors. Few of us will quarrel with that view. Surely the immediate and present purpose for which we are here today is merely to provide the means for the funds which have been promised to be given in a regular manner. There is not any reason why in the long-term future development of Europe we may not consider a more powerful Assembly.
  Mr. English: Would not the hon. Member agree that once one has got into a prison and the door is locked against one it is not easy, and that it would be better to ensure the door is not locked in the first place, if one wants to get out?
  Mr. Loveridge: That may be so with a prison, but that is not what we are entering. We are entering a large, viable market which will enable us to sell our Government that it is not?

  1203
  The hon. Member spoke about possible modifications in the Assembly, but the question really is, first of all, what are we doing now? It is not good enough to say that we hope we are not getting into a sort of prison. What we are doing now is necessary for the Government to meet the pledges which have been given. If we are to look far ahead into the future, it is up to us, from our experience and practice in this House, to make the efforts which we can to bring to the whole of the European business, which we are looking forward to entering upon, a more democratic procedure. Immediately, at the present time, we are newly joining a club, and surely the basis of joining a club must be trust between its members. The Europeans must see now that they will get the funds they have been promised and that they will get them in a regular manner.
  The Amendment has cut across the undertakings given.
  Mr. English: No. Let me make it quite clear. I will not have that. This is in no way an anti-European Amendment. I made the point that there might he a slight technical objection to the Amendment for the next two years, and I am sure that the Financial Secretary could amend that if he wished, but apart from that slight technical matter there is nothing whatsoever anti-European in the Amendment. I will not have that accusation made against me.
  Mr. Loveridge: I am not trying to say that the hon. Member is not—
  Mr. English: The Amendment would not stop up from going into Europe.
  Mr. Loveridge: I am not attempting to state that the hon. Member is anti-European or not in favour of Europe. All I am trying to say is that this is a perfectly natural method of providing the system with finance.
  The other European countries will pay their contributions, and they will pay them within two months of their falling due. The same must apply to us. We would be in great difficulties in meeting our obligation to pay within two months of our obligation falling due if the matter had to be the subject of discussion here on an annual Vote. Indeed, one begins to wonder how we could fairly say to
  1204
  our European colleagues, whom we are about to join, "We will think out every year what we want to pay" or "We will think out whether our subscription or the promised proportion we have offered will rise or fall". We could not do that. Of course, there may well be considerable advantages to us in this method of payment, quite apart from its enabling us to meet our obligations. The value-added tax, as we know, can greatly help our exports and thus our balance of payments.
  It was about the balance of payments that the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) spoke with such concern. He spoke of vast sums possibly being paid across the boundaries. What sum did he arrive at in his estimate? He spoke of £470 million. Even this figure is under £10 per head of population. In what he said he ignored the great advantages to our advanced industries which are poised ready for entry on a substantial scale, on the basis of the largest stock market in Europe being available to them. That stock market can be quickly adaptable to raise money for the enterprises required to gain advantage from the vast new market we are about to enter.
  The right hon. Member for Stepney went on to compare the differences of what might be paid between the countries. There was a possible deficit from Germany to the Community budget of £130 million, a possible gain to France of £310 million; Belgium was to gain £27 million and Holland £180 million. The figure of £470 million possible deficit for us—the right hon. Gentleman's own estimate—surely is not high for those advantages which our industries may obtain, and it is reasonable therefore to think that we should contribute in some way towards the resettlement of European agriculture. In the last 10 years many have left the land in Europe. In the next 10 years many more will. When that process is through it will not be a question, as the right hon. Gentleman said, of propping up their farms. The question instead will be the propping up of our regions. If this is so, the whole system of payments about which we are speaking will surely benefit Britain.
  The right hon. Member for Stepney was right to say that in the past we had suffered from balance of payments problems. He went on to say that this would

  1205
  be particularly true in the future because the levies would affect us more than any other nation. Those levies are to be treated as customs duties for collection purposes. At first sight what the right hon. Member said may be plausible. We import a great deal of food from abroad; we always have. In the 70s and 80s of the last century it was an advantage to this country to import food cheaply, but the situation has changed. The destruction of our farms is no longer the great asset to us that it was. It was never an advantage to the farmers, but it may be said to have provided a base for industrial growth and for cheap food for the community.
  What has happened to change this? Why do I say that the situation is different? It is because, by importing cheaply through decade after decade, we placed not only our agricultural enterprises but also our industrial enterprises at a severe disadvantage. For this reason the year after year of successive drain by importing foodstuffs that we could well have produced ourselves at home prevented our ever building up any kind of substantial reserve to meet temporary balance or payments difficulties caused by industrial expansion [An HON. MEMBER: "Before the war".] Yes, also before the war. Whenever our industry expanded rapidly, the Government were forced, because of balance of payments problems, to reduce imports and to cut off the benefits of that expansion. Every boom had the profitable and best head cut off it.
  This situation is peculiar to Britain alone, because we import half our food. No other nation is in this situation. Therefore, we are at greater peril than any other country on account of the balance of payments, and always have been. The levies, in fact, will help us; they will help to push up home output of farming produce, and our own sales of farm machinery to Europeans will surely help also in curing any balance of payments problem there may be to come. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a two-way traffic though."] It is a two-way traffic, but our agricultural machinery manufacturers are extraordinarily well placed. They have already exported considerably and their chance of exporting to Europe
  1206
  even more substantially over the next decade in order to help them reform their farms is substantial.
  However, in spite of what I have said, I accept that a serious balance of payments problem may arise after we join Europe. I hope the Government will look at the possible solutions I put forward in the debate last week for curing this balance of payments problem. I spoke about the boundaries of the new European group. If Britain is not to suffer any more from adverse balance of payments problems across the borders of the exchanges within Europe itself, then there needs to be a boundary for balance of payments adjustments, for currency adjustments, round the whole territory of the new nations. I hope the Government will consider early negotiations with the Europeans in order to achieve this.
  The right hon. Member for Stepney was critical about the loss of control and lack of knowledge by this House over the expenditure which we hope to agree this evening and the arrangements which are made. However, I remember not so long ago substantial debts being run up by the Labour Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. Much information about those debts was kept secret between the international bankers, and not everything was brought to the attention of this House. Some of the old debts dated back to the days of our big borrowing after the war from the United States; some of them run on for as long as 50 years. We are still paying off the interest on the capital. A period of 50 years is a very long time for an obligation which does not have to come before the House in the ordinary way. That is as much of a derogation of the powers of this House as is anything which is suggested in this Resolution—which is no more than a wish to meet our proper obligations to the Europeans. I hope the Government will resist this Amendment and that this Resolution will go through in the interests of our country.
  8.41 p.m.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Loveridge). After 15 years spent in a university trying to teach the economic history of this country over the last 70 years, I found the hon. Gentleman's exposition of the disadvantages of cheap

  1207
  food curious, to say the least. His argument that a continual drain on our balance of payments and our ability to build up gold reserves was the natural and inevitable consequence of importing, cheap food is without any support by any academic economist, with one exception whom the hon. Gentleman well knows. With that one exception, the hon. Gentleman is alone in that argument. The argument that it is the need to import cheap food which presents a cut-off point on the 19th century booms in the economy has little sustained evidence to back it.
  Mr. Loveridge: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that various reports have suggested that it is practicable for British farming to save up to £250 million a year on food imports, and is not that a very substantial sum if taken over a number of years?
  Mr. Hughes: I do not question that for a moment. I am arguing that the hon. Gentleman's economic analysis of the past effects of cheap food is erroneous in detail and fallacious in whole. Therefore, on that basis it is a somewhat precarious activity to place much trust in the hon. Gentleman's arguments elsewhere. He suggested at one point that an obligation for 50 years was something this House did not acknowledge. I would remind him that Consols taken out in 1754 are still paid under the Consolidated Fund legislation in this House and are still controlled by it.
  There are three elements in this Amendment which are fundamental to our British history and important to the future stability of society. One fundamental is that there should be no taxation without representation. It is in this light that my own sub-Amendment, which I regret has not been called, sought to provide that if we are to have within the Assembly control of the taxation of the British people, then at least that Assembly shall be directly elected. We are not allowing the taxation of British people to be in the hands, however benign, of Whips of Government and Opposition parties together to determine who shall attend the Assembly in Europe. Whatever my respect for the usual channels, this is not the usual channel to determine who my representative and the represen
  1208
  tative of every one of my constituents shall be in a democratic assembly. Therefore, when we ask for an assembly to vet taxation, we also must needs ask for a democratically elected European assembly.
  In this we see the fundamental democratic problem between whether we are concerned with parliamentary democracy or with what is sometimes called assembly democracy, which is the division of powers between the legislature and the Executive. Alone of the members of either the current or the enlarged Community France retains a curious hybrid wherein the assembly is to a large extent the creature of the Executive. Under the proposals contained in the Money Resolution we become more than ever the creature of the Executive. In that way we move into a concept of democracy which may be democratic, but which is democratic in terms of the code Napoleon, not in terms of British common law. That is an enormous difference, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).
  This is not to be anti-European, but to recognise that there are different forms of democracy and that the Money Resolution introduces into the British form a type which is virtually unknown. When we tried to introduce this type of democracy into the American colonies in the 1760s and 1770s we brought upon our heads the American War of Independence. The American colonists went to war on precisely the sort of power of taxation which we are prepared to grant in perpetuity to the Council of Ministers of the E.E.C. without even requiring a democratic check. It is there that we press the Government, as good Europeans, to accept the need for the assembly to vet and for that assembly to be democratically elected.
  It is well accepted on both sides of the House that Parliament and its institutions are at the moment held in very low esteem by many people in this country, perhaps deservedly so, because the gap between the governed and the Government, in Dunning's phrase, has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. In those conditions the Government are again wantonly wishing to increase the gap yet further. However remote we in this House and the Treasury knights in

  1209
  Whitehall may be to the ordinary constituent, the Council of Ministers and the Commission are even more remote. They appear to my constituents and to those of many, if not all, hon. Members, to be less accountable, less responsive and less responsible to the English electorate than our present masters.
  When we acknowledge that already our parliamentary institutions are in some ways breaking up under the pressures, as the Financial Secretary said earlier this afternoon the powers of control over expenditure are now vestigial by means of the Estimates and Votes on Estimates. I found that an interesting constitutional theory which has not been propounded in quite such bald terms before. However, it is precisely this divorce from what people think we are doing to what the Financial Secretary told us we are not doing which gives the feeling among the electorate of having no control. To pass the Money Resolution unamended with no attempt to provide real democratic control would be yet further to press this fear on the British electorate.
  In the case of the agricultural levies under the common agricultural policy I gather from the Financial Secretary that the rôle of the Government and of the House is to act merely as agents, farmers-general to the European Commission. It is a long time since any Minister of the Crown accepted the rôle of tax-farmer on behalf of an external authority. Yet under the Money Resolution this appears to be the rôle that the Financial Secretary is undertaking, recalling the days of Caesar Augustus—all the world shall be enrolled and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will go out and tax the people on behalf of some distant emperor. If that is what we are doing, let us be clear about it. I have some doubts. If we insert a check, a balance, to prevent it happening by making all such taxation subject to the approval of the Assembly and making such an Assembly directly, democratically elected, most of though by no means all the fears, about the lack of safeguards for the ordinary British people would be removed. The people would at least begin to feel that they were not buying not merely a pig in a poke but a pig in a poke without the means to cut the poke open.
  This fear is strong, and in the Amendment we are trying to break it down.
  1210
  It is not an anti-European Amendment. It is pro-democracy, and pro-parliamentary institutions, whether of the French form or the British. It is an Amendment favoured by every parliamentarian and every Parliament from Oslo to Rome, except one. Are the Government so to tie themselves to the Quai d'Orsay that they will find their only ally in Paris, or will they accept the Amendment, at least in spirit if not the precise wording, and permit money to be taxed from the British people only by a democratically-elected Assembly.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Adley: The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) said that he thought Parliament was held in low esteem at the moment. Might not the behaviour of certain hon. Members in their relationship towards the European legislation have contributed towards this? The hon. Member will know what I mean, and I certainly do not aim these remarks at him. But on the benches opposite are people who have long held the view that they were not interested in joining the E.E.C. Yet I now look in vain for anyone who both in 1967 and in October, 1971 voted in favour of the principle of entry because all the Labour Marketeers are absent. That may be one reason why Parliament is perhaps not held in the esteem many of us would wish.
  I return to the words spoken by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore). I do so with some temerity, for he rebuked my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary as being a new boy. Therefore, it is with the greatest diffidence that I say anything at all on the subject of the European Economic Community. The right hon. Gentleman, with many of his right hon. and hon. Friends, was hard at work this afternoon trying to re-write history. I am sorry to say these things in his absence, but what amazes me about him is his total pessimism on the entire subject of Europe. I am optimistic about the prospects for this country if we join the E.E.C. What depresses me is that the anti-Marketeers are so sure of everything being absolutely awful. I wish I could be as sure of anything as they seem to be so sure of everything in relation to the E.E.C.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: Wrong quote.
  Mr. Adley: I was not quoting anybody.
  The analogy of warfare has been drawn once or twice in the debate. There is only one significant relationship between warfare and the Resolution and the whole question of the E.E.C. It is a relationship of difference. Warfare is generally a reaction of a country faced with a sudden situation. Entry into the E.E.C. will in its way be as significant as, if not more significant than, any war we have fought in our history. But we are doing it carefully, well-prepared and with our eyes open. I do not believe that the dismal Jimmies on the Opposition benches will he proved right.
  When the time comes, all the remarks about burdens of payments made by the right hon. Member for Stepney could be seen in a different light. If we use the word "investment" instead of "burden", if we regard the monies we shall spend as an investment for the future, we are far more likely correctly to assess the effect that joining the E.E.C. will have on this country in 20 years' time.
  I now turn to the Resolutions. It is my understanding of the own-resources system that it is basic to the character and political purpose of the Community. That is what differentiates the Common Market and a simple customs union. Therefore, I fail to see how anybody who has supported entry into the Community over the years can tonight vote against the Resolutions we are supposed to be discussing.
  We have also heard about payments to the Consolidated Fund, as expressed in the Money Resolution, being wholly exceptional, in that the House cannot comment upon the way in which the money is spent. I do not claim to be an expert in these matters, but is not the servicing of the National Debt a function with many historic similarities which prove that what we are doing tonight is not something the House has has never done before? For instance, are not the payments we make to the Civil List or the salaries and pensions we pay to judges one of the numerous items—if one dug deeply one could find other examples—on which the Government are taking action in expenditures of money which do not require day-to-day scrutiny by the House? But even if we should be taking a step which is new, which the House has never before taken, I am bound to refer to a letter published in the
  1212
  Bristol Evening Post two days ago, which simply said:
  I have up until recently been an anti-Marketeer, but having observed the activities of the last few weeks if I am now faced with a choice between control from the E.E.C. or the T.U.C. I shall no longer be an anti-Marketeer."
  That is a feeling which many people in this country have gained in the last two or three weeks.
  In the last 50 years we may have slowly but inevitably been losing a certain amount of control over our day-to-day activities, but I would rather have a small share in a big decision, as we are likely to have in our future in Europe, than a full share in no decision at all, which is what we are faced with otherwise as regards our future in the world.
  Anyone who has even half studied what the Economic Community is all about over the years must have known that in due course, if a British Government were able satisfactorily to negotiate terms which they could present to Parliament, this would require implementing legislation. The world, our country, and this House know that we shall enter the E.E.C. That being so, we surely must give the Government the ways and means with which to implement the legislation.
  9.3 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Deakins: I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) will forgive me, for I shall not follow his remarks. Time is pressing and we need to finish the debate in good time. But I agree with him that this is an unprecedented step. That was not an original statement, because it was a point made by a number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. As many hon. Members have pointed out today and last week, the fact is that Parliament's sole reason for existence is taxation against redress of grievances. We are told that we shall lose a little of our power of taxation, but only a little bit. Those were the words of the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary. But that was what the nursemaid said of her illegitimate baby—"It is only a little one."
  Once one has started on this road of giving up taxation powers, there is no end to the powers that may be given up thereafter. In addition, we shall have no power of redress of grievances at

  1213
  Community level, a point about which some of us would be concerned. We are told by the Financial Secretary that we shall be able to debate these matters on Supply. That is very nice of him. I understand that Supply is mainly Opposition time and not Government time. We are told also that the Expenditure Committee will be able to look into these matters. But in both cases, to what effect, if ultimately, after all discussions, investigations and visits to Europe, this Parliament will have no power to say nay to charges on the Consolidated Fund?
  We are told that a value-added tax, because of the way we shall introduce it in the Finance Bill this year, will be subject to parliamentary approval should there be any future changes required of us for the purposes of providing the own resources in the Commmunity budget? But there will be no need for the Community to suggest changes in the form of the value-added tax. All that it need do is to say that it wants a bigger rate of the value-added tax than it is currently levying. As I understand it, that would not be subject to the full approval, investigation and scrutiny of this House.
  What about the control of the Community's "own resources" expenditure? We have not been told very much about that so far, but I think that we shall have to be. I see two dangers. The first is that, instead of hon. Members saying that this Parliament needs more power, there will be an increasing number of hon. Members on both sides, especially the federalists among us, who will say that we need more powers for a European Parliament. But, once one starts on that very easy slippery path towards giving more powers to a European Parliament, one creates all sorts of complications in the relationships between this Parliament and its powers and the powers of a European Parliament.
  It is for that reason that I am not in favour of the Amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) My hon. Friend has not fully thought out all the implications and consequences which would flow from a decision on the part of this House to cede its sovereignty to another legislative assembly. That could create complications in the future.
  1214
  The second danger that I see lies in the process of harmonisation which the Financial Secretary tended to dismiss by saying simply, "But that is what is intended". What is the position if one Government of this country agree to a harmonisation of taxation which then, presumably, becomes binding on successive Governments? Is not that a breach of our constitutional principle which says that no Parliament can bind its successor? Surely the only alternative facing a future Government who disagreed with that harmonisation policy would be to withdraw from the E.E.C.
  I said that I could see two dangers. However, there is a third. Harmonisation is a self-generating process. The more that is achieved, the more it will be desired to achieve, once the federalists in this House and in other legislative assemblies in Western Europe get the bit between their teeth. We see a process whereby more and more of the powers and sovereignty of this House are ceded to the Community, and not only in matters of indirect taxation. If it is possible to harmonise indirect taxation, as we are supposed to be doing, there is no reason why direct taxation should not be harmonised, and I believe that this will come eventually.
  I believe that it behoves everyone who can see a decade or two ahead to point out these dangers now, even if at the end of the day people say that they accept them and feel that the future of this Parliament in relation to the European Parliament will be very much like the relationship between one of our present county councils and this House. If that is the view of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, they are entitled to hold it, of course. But it is not one which is shared by many hon. Members on this side of the House.
  9.9 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: My hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow, West (Mr. Deakins), like many other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, illustrated how essential it was that we should have this extended debate on the Ways and Means Resolution and on the Money Resolution. If it had been left to the Government to order these affairs, these debates would have taken place last Thursday evening

  1215
  and some of them would have been compressed into a very short space of time. However, it was thought by the Opposition that we should ask for the best part of a full day in order to discuss these matters. We believed that both the Ways and Means Resolution and the Money Resolution were unprecedented and, therefore, that we needed more time to discuss them. Everyone who has listened to the debate will agree that it is right that the House should have had more time, whatever our views may be about entry to the Community. It is necessary for the House to know what is being done and to be able to explain to the people what we are doing.
  Some hon. Members have suggested that everything is clear and simple, needing no explanation. The Financial Secretary put his case very courteously and the suggestion now is that if we do not understand it we must be simple. In the debate the other day the Minister who was most emphatic in saying that everything was plainer than any pikestaff was the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which in a way seems to be the exception that proves the rule. I do not believe that any Minister is well advised in suggesting that the Bill is easily understandable. It has to be examined most carefully and the more we examine it the more I believe that we will discover we will have to amend and scrutinise it.
  It is a pity that we have not had any assistance today from the Liberal Party. I hope that it is not contracting out of the Committee stage and the general proceedings on the Bill altogether.
  Mr. Russell Johnston indicated dissent.
  Mr. Foot: I am glad to see the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston), who is the sole representative of the Liberal Party tonight, disagreeing, because it is deplorable that no Member from the Liberal Party has sought to participate in this debate. We are discussing something for which Liberals have fought hard—the whole question of the rights of Parliament and its taxing rights. We are discussing principles of first importance for the future of parliamentary institutions and it is remarkable that there should have been such a debate
  1216
  with no Member from the Liberal Party attempting to make a contribution. We will simply have to carry on without any assistance from them.
  We are grateful for one statement made by the Financial Secretary which underlines what was said by the Solicitor-General during the debate on the Treaty of Accession: that the Bill is amendable in every Clause and subsection, in every particular. The whole thing is wide open for the Amendments which all hon. Members may wish to table, we are told, We are grateful for that undertaking because it was possible for people to read the Money Resolution or the Ways and Means Resolution in a way which might be considered restrictive. Indeed, there were some parts of these Resolutions which were not easily understandable unless conceivably they had that purpose. We are glad to have the hon. Gentleman's assurance that nothing of the sort is intended and that nothing of the sort can happen.
  One of the things that has emerged which is of special interest in view of the differences of opinion on this subject, and which I repeat for the benefit of those who may not have heard the whole debate, is that it has been emphasised from both sides, from those in favour of entry and those against, that there are different ways of carrying out what may be the intention of the Government. That is what the Minister means when he says that we can amend every Clause. It casts some slight reflection on and requires some slight modification of what was said by the Solicitor-General. The hon. and learned Gentleman rather gave the impression when he spoke on Second Reading that the Bill was perfectly drafted and that anyone who thought he could see any improvement to be made in any part of it would be in for a very fierce parliamentary lesson. We now have it from the wiser Financial Secretary that of course no one on the Government benches is so foolish as to think that.
  We have had illustrations in the debates of what I should describe as the "beyond the call of duty" Clauses or subsections. There are several portions of the Bill in which the Government have gone much further than is required even for entry. There are several parts

  1217
  of which it is said that other Parliaments in the Six have provisions for scrutiny over matters which are eventually to be submitted to the Council of Ministers. We do not find such provisions in this have gone much further than is required Bill. Therefore, in the set of Amendments—and there may be a large number—there are some which can appeal as much to those who wish to see us enter the Community as to those who wish us to stay out.
  There is another category of Amendments by which Ministers in carrying out duties under this Measure would be called upon to take account of the expression of opinion by the Council of Ministers or the Brussels Commission. There is a category arising partly from the discussion today. It has been made clear by hon. Members in all parts of the House who are opposed to entry—the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), for example, who has made proposals which presumably will appear in the form of Amendments in Committee—that Parliament, instead of being deprived of its powers of control in the crude, reckless and comprehensive manner stated in the Bill, could act by some different arrangements. Those arrangements from the point of view of some of us may not be satisfactory, but they would be better for the maintenance of proper control by Parliament. For any hon. Member who has missed this part of the debate, that opens up a whole special field of Amendments.
  There are other Amendments which might be moved by those who wish to alter some of the terms which have been agreed. There are other Amendments which we hope would establish that Parliament will not surrender even those powers which the pro-Europeans think are absolutely essential. We can argue about these. There can be a whole variety of Amendments. I hope that none of my hon. Friends will imagine that debates in Committee will be only on Amendments moved by those who want to alter some of these provisions. There will be Amendments to mitigate the disaster. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has moved today an extremely important one. It says that we should not surrender the powers of control over taxation as
  1218
  proposed in the Ways and Means and Money Resolutions unless there is to be reference of those matters to a European Assembly.
  The reason why I would not wish to support my hon. Friend's Amendment at this stage is that I realise it has two major drawbacks. One is that if we secured the arrangements whereby these matters had to be referred to the European Assembly, and greater powers were given to that Assembly in many respects, that would further deprive this Parliament of some of those powers. So we have to watch that aspect of the matter most carefully.
  If it were finally concluded—I trust we never reach that stage—that this Bill was going to go through without any peradventure or any possibility of checking it, if we had reached that appalling and calamitous situation, it might be argued that we should see whether we could have this safety net of a democratic verdict in Europe. But we have not reached that stage yet.
  Therefore, although I understand why my hon. Friend put down his Amendment, I would ask him to consider withdrawing it and reintroducing it at a later stage if the Bill proceeds and if we do not secure all the other safeguards which we hope that the other Amendments will secure.
  I hope that what we do tonight will be to vote on the two propositions: first, to vote against the unprecedented Ways and Means Resolution and, secondly, to vote for the Amendment which we have put forward officially from this side on the Money Resolution, which would secure the first step in ensuring that the House retains some of the powers which the Government wish, quite unnecessarily in our view, to throw away.
  The Financial Secretary talked as though the powers of taxation involved would not be considerable. He did not conceal the fact that we are surrendering some powers of taxation in these two categories—under Clause 2(1) the self-executing powers or the regulations, and also some powers with some parliamentary control remaining, although not as effective a control as the full legislative process. What we should be considering is whether that is really necessary, even from the point of view of entering the Community.

  1219
  Many safeguards can be achieved. I do not think it. is an especially good one, but there is the one which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tried to introduce on Second Reading—the ad hoc committee to examine Statutory Instruments and the processes by which we can consider what are the proposals made from the Commission to the Council and how this Parliament may be able to examine them in between.
  I understand where the Minister proposes to insert his committee, but of course it will have no powers. It will merely make recommendations to the House as to how we will be able to comment. The right to comment was what the Financial Secretary called it. British parliamentary history has not been centred around this clarion call of the "right to comment". Even the parish councils, under the proposed local government reform, are complaining because they have only the right to comment. The right to comment is all that the ad hoc body would be able to recommend or the House to do.
  Mr. Rippon indicated dissent.
  Mr. Foot: The right hon. and learned Gentleman keeps shaking his head about it. The point of the operation is that he wants some parliamentary surveillance, some proposition that he can present to Parliament to say that these proposals which the Council of Ministers is to consider can be looked at by the House of Commons. But again I say the right to look at it—that is not the foundation of the British Parliament.
  Mr. Rippon: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that even after the process of scrutiny, which I hope he would realise is worth while, there is always the right to vote?
  Mr. Foot: A right to vote? It depends on the proposal. There will not be a right to vote on proposals going from the Commission to the Council. There will be a right to vote having no effect, that is a right to vote as a comment on what they think is the proposal being made by the Government to the Council of Ministers. The vote would not be saying, "Here, you cannot push through that piece of taxation. You cannot go forward with that imposition on the people of this country". The vote would
  1220
  say, "We do not like what the Council of Ministers is proposing to do, but if it does it we cannot stop it.
  All these matters we will put in proper regulations and in proper amendments and we will have them debated and see how that can be done. But I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not, like some of his hon. Friends come and tell me—which is another argument which really contradicts what he says in his next breath—"We have given away so many of these powers already that we should not worry about giving away several more. We have so much trouble with Statutory Instruments as it is that it does not matter if we have a whole host more".
  That is a curious argument. It is like saying that because we have an occasional hangover we might as well all become confirmed alcoholics. That is an argument which would have special appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. He ought to understand the distinction very well.
  That is the kind of argument we have had from hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have had certainly, from back benchers speaking earlier, the argument that we have given away so many powers of control over various forms of taxation and various forms of international arrangement that we should not be too alarmed if we give away several more. We are alarmed because we believe the more we have seen the powers of the Executive increase the more we have seen the resort to Statutory Instruments on a scale which was never conceived to be right or desirable way back, some 10 or 15 years ago. The more we have seen that the more necessary it is that we should strengthen and sustain all the protections and shields which we have in this country and in this Parliament against the abuse of the rights of the people.
  I must say I thought the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary fortified this case greatly by his remarks about value-added tax, even before we have had the proposal for a V.A.T. presented to the House—we have had a Green Paper, a general document, but nothing like the details—that this is a new form of tax which is to be introduced into this country. I think all my hon. Friends at the last election made their opposition clear. We sometimes talk of what people said at the last election but on V.A.T. there is no doubt about it whatever. All

  1221
  of us said we were opposed to this value-added tax and that we did not like the principle of it.
  I understand why many of my hon. Friends think that. It is because it is in most respects a regressive tax. One might ask casually, in passing, how is it that such a regressive tax comes from what is supposed to be such a progressive institution? We are proposing in this Session to introduce an entirely new form of taxation, of a kind bitterly detested by this side of the House, a new form of direct taxation; and here in this Money Resolution, we are asked to give sanction to it. We are giving some approval to it in general form because the hon. Gentleman drew a sharp distinction in his speech between the Ways and Means Resolution which did not refer to value-added tax and the Money Resolution, which does.
  The hon. Gentleman used this argument for saying that all the other matters that are dealt with by the Money Resolution should not be subject to proper votes in Parliament and to the full panoply of scrutiny, investigation and votes, which is the normal procedure. In other words, he says that the argument which he uses for saying that we should put these matters in the same category as judges' salaries and the Civil List, which are not subject to such parliamentary control, should apply also to value-added tax because, he says, there must be a flow of money from this country.
  Let us get it straight what is happening to the money. It is going from this country to the coffers of Europe. At the beginning of the debate my right hon. Friend said how extensive those sums were. They are not reckoned in a few pounds, shillings and pence; they are reckoned in hundreds of millions of pounds. Value-added tax will be a big sum, but the hon. Gentleman says that we must not interfere with the flow of the money from this country to Europe because it would not be convenient for the people in Europe, or it would not be convenient for the Treasury—
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I have not interrupted the hon. Gentleman because I know he has a lot to say, but I did not use the word "convenient". What I said was that it would not be consistent with the obligations which the country
  1222
  undertook when my right hon and learned Friend signed the Treaty of Accession on 22nd January.
  Mr. Foot: I apologise at once to the hon. Gentleman if what I said was misleading. For one thing, he has made it very much worse. Apparently the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made an undertaking with the Community that we should apply the process of the Consolidated Fund arrangement for the value-added tax flow into Europe without the Government coming to the House of Commons and saying that the House of Commons was to be deprived of its rights of Votes on Account or straight votes on V.A.T. He should have listened to his hon. Friend, who clearly stated that it would not be consistent with providing the money in the way that had been agreed if we interfered with the flow. We have every right to interfere with the flow and the House of Commons has the right to choose which way it will vote the money.
  I say to my hon. Friends on this side of the House who are pro-European—and I am as pro-European as they are—that—this is a question of how the House of Commons will contribute the money. The money can be contributed in at least two ways, either in the way the Government have laid down in the Money Resolution or in the way which is laid down in our Amendment. The House of Commons is still free to make that choice.
  If we choose our Amendment, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to go back to Brussels to renegotiate, and he will have to do that time and time again during the Committee stage. If he does not have to do that we are confronted with a fait accompli, with a situation in which we cannot make any substantial Amendments. Of course we know that that cannot be the situation because it would expose the Solicitor-General as a man who had misled the House in the discussion on the Treaty of Accession and, even more serious, it would expose the Financial Secretary who opened the debate today.
  The House is perfectly free to vote for our Amendment. It will mean that we shall have insisted on one protection for this House's surveillance of the money that is voted, one protection which the

  1223
  Government have given away, which they have no right to give away and which we as a House of Commons are now recovering. To recover it fully, we shall have to effect various other Amendments during our proceedings.
  What we have sought to do in this debate is to make sure that the Ways and Means Resolution and the Money Resolution will not go through in a way which would deprive the House of Commons of its rights. This is simply the beginning of the struggle. We are not prepared to see the Bill go through on the basis of accepting what the occupants of the Treasury Bench have to say on these matters. All too soon in our discussions they have shown how little regard they have for the protections of this House. All too soon in our debates they have shown that they have not even provided the kind of protections which were freely available to them. All too soon in our debates they have shown that they have not even written into the Bill what is written into Acts of Parliament in some of the other countries of the Six.
  Therefore, we are inspired all the more to promise the Government, but, even more importantly than the Government, the country, that we shall expose the real nature of the Bill, expose what are the rights which are being taken away from our people if we allow such a Bill to go through. We will do it all the more because we know that this Government have never had the courage to put this issue to the people, and we are determined that it is the people of this country who shall eventually decide this issue.
  9.36 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has closed on a classic and important note, and I would not for one moment quarrel with him when he says, as has been said many times in this series of debates, and will be said again, that this is an important debate. I would quarrel with him in suggesting that the people of this country, confronted with the realities of the questions we are now considering by all three major political parties for a decade, must be regarded as wholly in ignorance of what we are about. It is simply because of the importance of the subject that our entire approach as a Parliament, as a
  1224
  House of Commons, as a democracy, has itself been without precedent.
  The subject has been on the agenda of the nation for a decade. It was brought back firmly on to the agenda of the nation five years ago. It has been debated in this House I should say on 17 or 18 full days up to this time, and it has been the subject of a succession of White Papers and statements from successive Governments.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: The facts have been known only for a year.
  The Solicitor-General: I come to that point immediately. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) joined with the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) and others in saying it was not available to this Government at this point in time to say that these matters ought to have been understood. I can understand, of course, hon. Members on both sides of the House advancing that argument about the terms which have been negotiated. I can understand if they like to advance the argument about the shape of the Bill. But I cannot understand the argument advanced in this form, that we are disentitled from saying that to a large extent this matter ought to be understood, when in matters which are being argued and have been argued for a number of years it is at the heart of our debate.
  Of course it is open to hon. Members, particularly the minority who have always opposed any application to join the Communities, to say, "This is something we will not buy at any price"; but to those who have entered the bidding, who supported the initial approach and throughout, and on more than one occasion, have said, "This is something which, if we get the terms right, we would like to buy on behalf of the British people", it is not entirely open, if they are to maintain intellectual consistency, to say "None of these matters has been so far understood". This is an important point one is entitled to make and it has been running right throughout these debates.
  My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury outlined, as indeed was outlined last week, the extent to which it simply cannot be contended that

  1225
  the idea of taxation flowing to the Communities—to pick up a phrase which has been used—is a novel idea. It has been a part of the Community system from the initial signature of the Coal and Steel Treaty, from April, 1951, that the levies on coal and steel have themselves been part of the "own resources" of the Community organisation. Article 201 of the European Economic Community Treaty made it plain that in due course the Community would have its "own resources", in particular revenues accruing from the common customs tariff when it was introduced, and it was visualised that those resources should replace the member State contributions.
  I cannot easily believe that these central concepts have wholly escaped the notice of hon. Members on either side of the House who seem to suggest that they have. From 1962 onwards it was laid down that the Market agricultural levies should belong to the Communities and we know the extent to which, from the agreement of principle in November. 1969, through to the repetition by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in February, 1970, and thereafter, the change to own resources "financing was part of the arrangement in respect of which the Labour Government were renewing the application. I do not wish to scrutinise texts with the right hon. and hon. Members opposite but the matter is beyond doubt and I simply cannot begin to understand how the right hon. Member for Stepney, along with others, can here declare his resolute opposition, as he put it, to the abominable prospect—
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Get back to the point.
  The Solicitor-General: I am quoting directly from what the right hon. Member for Stepney said in order to answer the point. I cannot begin to understand how the right hon. Member for Stepney, having subscribed to what was published at that time and thereafter, can now declare his resolute opposition to what he describes as the abominable prospect of this change in taxing arrangements. I comment that he never answered the question put by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury about the respect in which the essentials of the arrangements we are now considering are different from those that were considered
  1226
  at the time of the February, 1970, White Paper.
  Mr. Shore: I think the essence of the difference is this. In 1967, as in earlier years in the Community until after the agreement of April, 1970, right up to that point, nothing was firm or settled in the European Community; all was a matter of transitional arrangements or, as in the case of the customs duties referred to in Article 201, dependent upon the unanimous agreement of the member countries, which had not been asked for or obtained.
  The Solicitor-General: It simply will not begin to wash. The right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) told the House on 2nd February, 1970, that the arrangement provisionally agreed presented no obstacle to a continued approach to the Communities. The right hon. Gentleman has left it singularly late to try to answer the question which was put to him. Came the decision of 21st and 22nd April, 1970, and following on that, which was precisely foreshadowed in the often cited paragraphs of the February, 1970, White Paper, the right hon. Gentleman's Government, the Government of which he was a member, indicated its intention to renew the application. It is on that foundation, in respect of that Community organised as it then was, that these negotiations have proceeded.
  Mr. Shore: All that happened was that the Government agreed to negotiate, as did the present Government, but not with any disposition to accept any particular arrangement which had not been negotiated or considered by the Labour Government.
  The Solicitor-General: Of course not, but the then Government agreed to negotiate—and the right hon. Gentleman knows this perfectly well—in respect of the institutions established by the 1967 Treaty and, indeed, by the agreement of 1970. That was the matter in respect of which the Labour Government made their bid, and there is no room for argument about the essential nature of it.
  Mr. English Mr. English rose—
  The Solicitor-General: No, not now. I do not underrate the importance of many questions raised on particular points by right hon. and hon. Members

  1227
  on both sides of the House. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) referred to one of the Commission regulations in respect of the fixing of levies on meat. It is right to say that regulations and directives emitting from the Commission are made only in the context of previous policy decisions by the Council of Ministers. For example, the Council of Ministers fixes the target price or fixed price in respect of the commodities to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. All that the Commission is doing is issuing regulations or directives by determining the level of levy to achieve a price in respect of which negotiations have been taking place in the Council of Ministers.
  Mr. Jay: But the Solicitor-General will not deny that the Commission on its own has the power to increase the rate of levy—that is to say, to impose additional taxation without any reference to the Council of Ministers, let alone to this House.
  The Solicitor-General: It does so in pursuit of policy agreements already arrived at by the Council of Ministers and it implements those in the same way as many agencies implement international agreements in this country and elsewhere by reference to foundations already agreed. It does not go to the heart of the matter. There are better points for the hon. Gentleman to make than that.
  Mr. Jay Mr. Jay rose—
  The Solicitor-General: I am sorry, I cannot give way again.
  I should like to turn to a different point raised by a number of hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton). It would be wrong for anybody to assume that the levy of value-added tax on this country would not be subject to the full panoply of parliamentary discussion and debate. There is no question of Parliament imposing V.A.T. by these Ways and Means Resolution proposals, because that will he put forward in the Finance Bill. The E.E.C. countries are thereby committed only to the introduction of a value-added tax. They have not agreed on the harmonisation of rates and the coverage. That will be done only by means of directives
  1228
  in respect of which unanimity will be required. It means that in coming to the House of Commons Her Majesty's Government would have to take the steps by their own legislation if any changes were needed to enable V.A.T. to be introduced, or the shape of it to be varied to comply with a Community directive thereafter.
  Mr. Michael Foot Mr. Michael Foot rose—
  The Solicitor-General: No; I have very little time left and I want to try to deal with other points.
  I come to the more central point which relates to the extent and nature of the changes effected in parliamentary control. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury explained the three different natures of the funds with which we are here dealing. They are first put all in one package—those in the nature of loans, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton recognised were appropriate for handling through the Consolidated Fund or National Loans Fund. That is the first category. The second category is described as "own resources "—namely, at this stage the customs duties and agricultural levies—and at a later stage, when and if that point arrives, the percentage of V.A.T. when that has been harmonised.
  The case for "own resources" contributions going on the Consolidated Fund procedure is very strong. It is of the essence of the organisation that this is money for the Communities to handle on behalf of the Communities in accordance with previously taken decisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) explained that this had always been foreshadowed. He explained that it emphasises the important aspect of the character of the Communities as something more than customs union which underpins their cohesion and minimises the risk of defaults which other international organisations face.
  The final element is that which is necessary until any change is made in respect of V.A.T., namely, the member States' contribution. I readily acknowledge, as did the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, the wisdom of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; but I will not acknowledge that there was any inconsistency between what he said

  1229
  and what I say. We have both said that the form of these Resolutions permits, and will permit hereafter, the widest possible debate about the legislative structure which gives effect to the intention of joining the Communities which is not restrictive on them in any way.
  The right hon. Member for Battersea, North suggested that in discussing the reality and theory of parliamentary control, my hon. Friend was suggesting that the theory does not work exactly as described and therefore it is unimportant. The way in which he was presenting it was that the description of the theory does not in detail always equal the reality of practice. But neither he nor I, nor any member of the Government, would begin to quarrel with the proposition that it is important that the influence and control of this House should be maintained as effectively as it can be in the particular circumstances of what we are now engaged upon.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that the whole gamut of parliamentary control ranged from Questions, on the one hand, to the threat of withdrawal of support, on the other. In this context, as in any other, that is the ultimate reality. It is that range of sanctions which will ultimately be available in respect of parliamentary control.
  It is possible—this is not the occasion—to visualise a rôle for the European Assembly. I do not wish to embark on that discussion now. It is more important at this point to consider the ways in which the influence of our Parliament and of this House should be brought to bear in this changed situation. My right hon. and learned Friend's ad hoc Committee is one of the instruments to consider this matter. The parliamentary Question, which will cover the entire range of Ministerial responsibility, will be another. The Expenditure Committee, to which a number of right hon. and hon. Members have referred, will also maintain a rôle in respect of these payments. These payments are part of public expenditure. In answer to my right hon. Friend who asked about the extent to which they were included in the five-year review, they are already included in last November's White Paper, Command 4829, as part of the forthcoming expenditure in the next four to five years.
  1230
  The Expenditure Committee can consider them in that context in the same way as any other expenditure there set out.
  The Expenditure Committee can consider the policy underlying the Estimates. It can examine Ministers as well as officials in respect of the policy and handling of the resources referred to there. It would be perfectly open for the Expenditure Committee to do that. After all, it does so already in relation to expenditure on aid to developing countries and contributions to international organisations. The Minister concerned remains responsible to Parliament for all the payments out of the Exchequer. The Minister responsible could be questioned about any action and the Committee could report in the perfectly ordinary way. The rôle of the Public Accounts Committee could also remain, because the Comptroller and Auditor General audits the Consolidated Fund accounts each year and issues a report on them. If he had occasion to issue a substantial report he would do so, and the P.A.C. would consider that in the normal way.
  I have two final points: the nature of this debate and the context of the series of debates. We are not tonight saying, as has been suggested yet again, yea or nay to Europe. Still less are we saying yea or nay to loss of parliamentary control. We are deciding tonight the question of yea or nay to a wide, unrestricted debate on the Clauses which form the substance of the Bill to which the House has already given a Second Reading. In that context we can consider all the suggestions from both sides about how the House should handle the matter.
  It is worth reminding ourselves, in the context of the important points made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, exactly what parliamentary sovereignty and the nature of our procedures are meant to be about. They are meant to represent a means of expressing the control through Parliament, on behalf of the people, of the Executive and of the way in which decisions by Parliament and the Executive affect the conditions of life of our people. I find it difficult always to accept without some demur complaints from the Opposition, even from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, about extensions of the power of the Executive, because they have not been conspicuously concerned to prevent them in the past.

  1231
  The essential point about parliamentary control is that if there is one constant thing about the way in which the House has conducted its business it is its infinite capacity for change. Over the centuries, through a series of different situations, as the rôle of Parliament in relation to the Crown has altered, as the colonies turned into the Commonwealth, as the Commonwealth went through the period symbolised by the Ottawa Agreement, all these changes were accompanied by real and substantial changes in the rôle of the House in fulfilling its tradition and functions. Sometimes the forms have remained the same and sometimes they have changed. But it is the substance which the House should be determined to preserve, and the Government believe that the substance of parliamentary control in this new situa
  tion could be preserved. In the context of our accession to the European Community it should be our purpose to see that it can be preserved. It is one on which the Government is resolved and one on which I invite the House to support the Government in their approach to the matter tonight.
  Mr. English: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, will he make plain whether he is accepting or rejecting the Amendment to which he was technically speaking?
  The Solicitor-General: I invite the House to reject the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Main Question put:
  The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 276.

  Division No. 62.]

  AYES

  [9.58 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Clegg, Walter

  Gorst, John

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Gower, Raymond

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Cooke, Robert

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Coombs, Derek

  Gray, Hamish

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Green, Alan

  Astor, John

  Cordle, John

  Grieve, Percy

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Cormack, Patrick

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Costain, A. P.

  Grylls, Michael

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Critchley, Julian

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Crouch, David

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Batsford, Brian

  Curran, Charles

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Bell, Ronald

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

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

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Benyon, W.

  Dean, Paul

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Havers, Michael

  Blaker, Peter

  Dixon, Piers

  Hawkins, Paul

  Boardman, Tom (Leicetter, S.W.)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hay, John

  Boscawen, Robert

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Drayson, G. B.

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Bowden, Andrew

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Heseltine, Michael

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hicks, Robert

  Braine Sir Bernard

  Eden, Sir John

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Bray, Ronald

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Brewis, John

  Elliott, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

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

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Emery, Peter

  Holland, Philip

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Fidler, Michael

  Hordern, Peter

  Bryan, Paul

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Hornby, Richard

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

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Buck, Antony

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Burden, F. A.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

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

  Foster, Sir John

  Hunt, John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fowler, Norman

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Fox, Marcus

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Fry, Peter

  James, David

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Channon, Paul

  Gardner, Edward

  Jessel, Toby

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk. C.)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Jopling, Michael

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Neave, Airey

  Speed, Keith

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Nicholls Sir Harmar

  Spence, John

  Kimball, Marcus

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Sproat, Iain

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Normanton, Tom

  Stainton, Keith

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Nott, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Steel, David

  Kirk, Peter

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Osborn, John

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Knox, David

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Stokes, John

  Lambton, Lord

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Lane, David

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Pardoe, John

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Percival, Ian

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Tebbit, Norman

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

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Temple, John M.

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Loveridge, John

  Pounder, Rafton

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Luce, R. N.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

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

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

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

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Tilney, John

  McLaren, Martin

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Raison, Timothy

  Trew, Peter

  McMaster, Stanley

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Redmond, Robert

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Maddan, Martin

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Waddington, David

  Madel, David

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Mather, Carol

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wall, Patrick

  Maude, Angus

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Walters, Dennis

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Mawby, Ray

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Warren, Kenneth

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rost, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

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

  Royle, Anthony

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Money, Ernie

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Scott, Nicholas

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Monro, Hector

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Sharples, Richard

  Worsley, Marcus

  More, Jasper

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

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Simeons, Charles

  Morrison, Charles

  Sinclair, Sir George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mudd, David

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Murton, Oscar

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

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Soref, Harold

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Buchan, Norman

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

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

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Ashley, Jack

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cant, R. B.

  Deakins, Eric

  Atkinson, Norman

  Carmichael, Neil

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Dempsey, James

  Baxter, William

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Doig, Peter

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Coleman, Donald

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Bishop, E. S.

  Concannon, J. D.

  Driberg, Tom

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Conlan, Bernard

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Dunn, James A.

  Body, Richard

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Eadie, Alex

  Booth, Albert

  Cronin, John

  Edelman, Maurice

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Bradley, Tom

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Ellis, Tom

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

  Dalyell, Tam

  English, Michael

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

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Evans, Fred

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Ewing, Henry

  Faulds, Andrew

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Price, William (Rugby)

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

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Probert, Arthur

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Rankin, John

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Foley, Maurice

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Foot, Michael

  Loughlin, Charles

  Richard, Ivor

  Ford, Ben

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Forrester, John

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McBride, Neil

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Freeson, Reginald

  McCann, John

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

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McCartney, Hugh

  Roper, John

  Garrett, W. E.

  McElhone, Frank

  Rose, Paul B.

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  McGuire, Michael

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Sandelson, Neville

  Golding, John

  Mackie, John

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Sillars, James

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Silverman, Julius

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Marquand, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hamling, William

  Marsden, F.

  Small, William

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Spearing, Nigel

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Meacher, Michael

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Stallard, A. W.

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mendelson, John

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Mikardo, Ian

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Millan, Bruce

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Milne, Edward

  Strang, Gavin

  Horam, John

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

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Molloy, William

  Swain, Thomas

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Taverne, Dick

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

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

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Moyle, Roland

  Tinn, James

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Tomney, Frank

  Hunter, Adam

  Murray, Ronald King

  Torney, Tom

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Tuck, Raphael

  Janner, Greville

  Ogden, Eric

  Urwin, T. W.

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  O' Halloran, Michael

  Varley, Eric G.

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Oram, Bert

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Orme, Stanley

  Wallace, George

  John, Brynmor

  Oswald, Thomas

  Watkins, David

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

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Weitzman, David

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Padley, Walter

  Wellbeloved, James

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Paget, R. T.

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Whitehead, Phillip

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

  Palmer, Arthur

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Judd, Frank

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Kelley, Richard

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Kerr, Russell

  Pendry, Tom

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Pentland, Norman

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Lambie, David

  Woof, Robert

  Lamond, James

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Latham, Arthur

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Prescott, John

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Leonard, Dick

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That any Act of the present Session to make provision in connection with the enlargement of the European Communities to include the United Kingdom, together with (for certain purposes) the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, may include provision—
  1236

  (a) for giving effect to any charge to taxation of those Communities, and for the imposition and alteration of customs duties by order of the Treasury;

  (b) for the payment into the Consolidated Fund or National Loans Fund of sums received by any Minister of the Crown or government department.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision in connection with the enlargement of the European Communities to include the United Kingdom, together with (for certain purposes) the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, it is expedient to authorise—
  (a) the charge on the Consolidated Fund or National Loans Fund of such sums as may be specified in the Act, being sums required to meet payments to any of the Communities or to Member States or to the
  European Investment Bank (or to redeem notes or obligations issued or created in respect of obligations to make such payments); and
  (b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses not so charged of any Minister of the Crown or government department, being expenses incurred under or by virtue of the Act or the treaties therein referred to.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]
  Amendment proposed, to leave out paragraph (a).—[Mr. Michael Foot.]
  Amendment negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 275.

  Division No. 63.]

  AYES

  [10.13 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Crouch, David

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Curran, Charles

  Hastings, Stephen

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Havers, Michael

  Astor, John

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Atkins, Humphrey

  d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hay, John

  Awdry, Daniel

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

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Dean, Paul

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hicks, Robert

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Dixon, Piers

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Batsford, Brian

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hiley, Joseph

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

  Bell, Ronald

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Holland, Philip

  Bennett, Or. Reginald (Gosport)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Benyon, W.

  Eden, Sir John

  Hordern, Peter

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hornby, Richard

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Blaker, Peter

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

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Emery, Peter

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fidler, Michael

  Hunt, John

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt Hon. John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Bray, Ronald

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  James, David

  Brewis, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Fortescue, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Foster, Sir John

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Fowler, Norman

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Fox, Marcus

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Bryan, Paul

  Fry, Peter

  Jopling, Michael

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

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Buck, Antony

  Gardner, Edward

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Burden, F. A.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Kershaw, Anthony

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

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Carlisle, Mark

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Goodhart, Philip

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Goodhew, Victor

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Channon, Paul

  Gorst, John

  Kirk, Peter

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gower, Raymond

  Kitson, Timothy

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Gray, Hamish

  Knox, David

  Churchill, W. S.

  Green, Alan

  Lambton, Lord

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Grieve, Percy

  Lane, David

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Clegg, Walter

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Cockeram, Eric

  Grylls, Michael

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Cooke, Robert

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Coombs, Derek

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C' dfield)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Cordle, John

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Loveridge, John

  Corfield, Rt Hn. Frederick

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Luce, R. N.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Costain, A. P.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Percival, Ian

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  McLaren, Martin

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Stokes, John

  McMaster, Stanley

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Tapsell, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

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

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Maddan, Martin

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Madel, David

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Tebbit, Norman

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Ouennell, Miss J. M.

  Temple, John M.

  Mather, Carol

  Ralson, Timothy

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Maude, Angus

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

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

  Mawby, Ray

  Redmond, Robert

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Tilney, John

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Trew, Peter

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Tugendhat, Christopher

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

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Money, Ernie

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Waddington, David

  Monro, Hector

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  More, Jasper

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Wall, Patrick

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Rost, Peter

  Walters, Dennis

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Royle, Anthony

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Morrison, Charles

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mudd, David

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Murton, Oscar

  Scott, Nicholas

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Neave, Airey

  Sharples, Richard

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

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

  Wilkinson, John

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Normanton, Tom

  Simeons, Charles

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Nott, John

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Onslow, Cranley

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

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

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Soref, Harold

  Worsley, Marcus

  Osborn, John

  Speed, Keith

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Spence, John

  Younger, Hn. George

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Sproat, Iain

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Stainton, Keith

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Pardoe, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Steel, David

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill,

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Cohen, Stanley

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Coleman, Donald

  Ellis, Tom

  Ashley, Jack

  Concannon, J. D.

  English, Michael

  Ashton, Joe

  Conlan, Bernard

  Evans, Fred

  Atkinson, Norman

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Ewing, Henry

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Faulds, Andrew

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Cronin, John

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

  Baxter, William

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

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Foley, Maurice

  Bishop, E. S.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Foot, Michael

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Ford, Ben

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Forrester, John

  Booth, Albert

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Bradley, Tom

  Deakins, Eric

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Garrett, W. E.

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

  Delargy, H. J.

  Gilbert, Dr. John

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

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Dempsey, James

  Golding, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Doig, Peter

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

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

  Dormand, J. D.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Cant, R. B.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dunn, James A.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Eadie, Alex

  Hamling, William

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mackie, John

  Richard, Ivor

  Hardy, Peter

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Harrison, Waller (Wakefield)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Hattersley, Roy

  McNamara, J. Kevin

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

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Roper, John

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Hilton, W. S.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Marquand, David

  Sandelson, Neville

  Horam, John

  Marsden, F.

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

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

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Meacher, Michael

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Mendelson, John

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Sillars, James

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Millan, Bruce

  Silverman, Julius

  Hunter, Adam

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Milne, Edward

  Small, William

  Janner, Greville

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

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Molloy, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  John, Brynmor

  Moyle, Roland

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

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

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Strang, Gavin

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Ogden, Eric

  Swain, Thomas

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

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Taverne, Dick

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  O'Malley, Brian

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

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Oram, Bert

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Judd, Frank

  Orbach, Maurice

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

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Orme, Stanley

  Tinn, James

  Kelley, Richard

  Oswald, Thomas

  Tomney, Frank

  Kerr, Russell

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Torney, Tom

  Kinnock, Neil

  Padley, Walter

  Tuck, Raphael

  Lambie, David

  Paget, R. T.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Lamond, James

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Varley, Eric G.

  Latham, Arthur

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Leonard, Dick

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Wallace, George

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Watkins, David

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Weitzman, David

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Wellbeloved, James

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Pentland, Norman

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Loughlin, Charles

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Preacott, John

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  McBride, Neil

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  McCann, John

  Probert, Arthur

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Rankin, John

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Woof, Robert

  McElhone, Frank

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  McGuire, Michael

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision in connection with the enlargement of the European Communities to include the United Kingdom, together with (for certain purposes) the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the charge on the Consolidated Fund or National Loans Fund of such sums as may be specified in the Act, being sums
  1242
  required to meet payments to any of the Communities or to Member States or to the European Investment Bank (or to redeem notes or obligations issued or created in respect of obligations to make such payments); and

  (b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses not so charged of any Minister of the Crown or government department, being expenses incurred under or by virtue of the Act or the treaties therein referred to.

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

  UNEMPLOYMENT (MANCHESTER)
  10.27 p.m.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I raise tonight the question of unemployment in the Manchester travel-to-work area. I am grateful for the opportunity of raising it and I would say to the Minister who is to reply to the debate that unless urgent action is taken on this problem Manchester is in danger of becoming a disaster area. I say this because, although there is serious unemployment in many parts of the country, Manchester has special problems which require special policies to deal with them.
  In Great Britain since the General Election of June, 1970, unemployment has risen by 79 per cent. That is grave enough, but in the Manchester travel-to-work area unemployment during this period has gone up by more than 100 per cent.; it has more than doubled. The total number of unemployed has risen from 15,017 to 30,135. The number of wholly unemployed has risen from 14.884 to 29,894. The breadwinners who are out of work, men aged over 18 are up from 13,212 to 26,358. Manchester's position is deteriorating, not only in itself but in relation to the rest of the country.
  In June, 1970, Manchester's unemployment was below the national average. Even a year ago, in January 1971, it was below the national average. Now, however, for the first time since the 1930s, Manchester's unemployment at 4·4 per cent. is above the national average. What is more, employment opportunities are vanishing fast, there are redundancies and especially closures. In the last few months the closure of Irlam has been announced and there have been re-redundancies at I.C.L. at West Gorton in my constituency and at the Nuclear Power Group in Knutsford, which provides employment opportunities in Manchester generally. At Churchill Machine Tools, Altrincham, employing 1,100, a closure has been announced with a reprieve of six months, but there is no
  1244
  guarantee that after six months those 1,100 jobs will be saved. Of 515 jobs at the Avon Rubber Company at Ardwick, 70 have gone and the other 445 are to go at the end of the month through closure.
  I note with satisfaction the presence of hon. Friends of mine from Manchester constituencies, but I am appalled at the absence of any hon. Member from a Manchester constituency on the Government side when we are debating this extremely serious situation. Not one Tory Manchester Member cares enough about the 30,000 unemployed in Manchester even to attend.
  Mr. Peter Rees: Who wants to listen to the hon. Member?
  Mr. Kaufman: The hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) can rustle up some of his hon. Friends from Manchester constituencies if he likes to do so.
  Mr. Rees: My hon. Friends from Manchester constituencies know better than to listen to the hon. Member.
  Mr. Kaufman: At Dawson Barfos in the constituency of Gorton there is a closure by which 250 more jobs will go. Since then there have been 150 redundancies at Ferranti's in Hollinwood and Wythenshawe, 250 at Groves Whitnall brewery, 116 at Edward Holmes and Company's electrical switchgear works and 93 redundancies at Francis Shaw rubber works. This is the tragic list in the Manchester area. The problem is even worse because vacancies to take up redundancies do not exist. In the period since June, 1970, the number of vacancies has more than halved. In June, 1970, there were five men chasing every job vacant in Manchester. That was bad enough, but a year ago there were eight men chasing every job and today there are 25 for every vacancy.
  In the three highest categories of unemployment the situation in Manchester is appalling. The latest figures are for September, 1971. In the construction industry there are 16 unemployed for every job available. In the distributive trades there are seven unemployed for every job and in electrical engineering there are 18 unemployed for every job.
  I wrote last month to the Secretary of State for Employment asking what

  1245
  special measures he would take to deal with closure at the Avon Rubber works. He told me of the special measures being taken. This demonstrates the tragedy of the situation. He told me that his Department was making a special approach to 400 employers in the area and that to date this had resulted in 77 additional vacancies for men and 62 for women. This is a tragic situation. The new jobs situation is nowhere near keeping up with the number of redundancies. During the last 13 months there have been 13,130 redundancies in Manchester but the number of jobs in manufacturing industry resulting from industrial development certificates in that period was only 1,971. For every seven redundancies only one new job has been created.
  This is a frightening problem for the City of Manchester, an industrial centre with a fine, historic reputation in the development of British industry. The men and women who live there are hardworking, with unrivalled skills. It is a terrible fact that industry there is in a state of decline and unless something is done my lion. Friends and I fear that the decline will be irreversible. The basic industries in the area are closing and hardly any, if any, new industry is coming in. The Minister may well say, as the Secretary of State has said repeatedly, that when the promised expansion comes everything will be all right.
  I have had my doubts for some time about whether the expansion was coming. Even if we have the unparalleled boom of which the Prime Minister has spoken, there is little scope for expansion in the city and the area round it. There is no guarantee, as there is in some areas, that if and when the boom comes Manchester will be floating off its depression on that boom.
  My hon. Friends representing Manchester constituencies and surrounding areas are present in some numbers this evening, unlike hon. Members opposite who represent the city and have not bothered to turn up. We are not simply complaining: we have specific proposals to make. We ask first that intermediate area status be given to the city and greater Manchester. We say this well knowing that the Minister may say that
  1246
  some areas are worse off than we are. That may be so—some areas certainly are—but the North-East Lancashire intermediate area has a lower unemployment level than we have. We do not begrudge North-East Lancashire its intermediate area status but we say that if it has it, we want it too and we have the right to claim it. We want the benefits that intermediate area status brings, namely, the large house building grants available under the Housing Act.
  I have repeatedly asked the Government to extend the benefits of that Act to Manchester but they have said that they cannot do so because we are not an assisted area. In view of our unemployment problems and our specific construction industry problems we should be given intermediate area status so that we can qualify for those benefits. I ask the Government to heed the demands made by the North West Industrial Development Association on behalf of Manchester and the surrounding area—demands made to the Prime Minister who has not responded—that building grants should be made available to companies, irrespective of employment considerations, towards the cost of constructing new industrial premises and modernising old industrial premises in all parts of the region. There should be 100 per cent. grants to local authorities for the clearance of derelict industrial sites and buildings.
  Those are specific requests. Above all we ask for an end to the ban announced last year on industrial development certificates for new projects, a ban imposed by the Minister when he sent out the guide saying that industrial development certificates in greater Manchester would not generally be granted for new projects, for entirely new lines of production or for substantial expansion which could be undertaken elsewhere. We ask for the end of that ban because we must have a transfusion of new lifeblood in Manchester.
  I received a letter recently from a constituent who has been employed for 41 years at Churchill Machine Tools which is now under sentence of death. My constituent wrote:
  "I sincerely hope that you can bring some pressure to bear in order to dissuade this Government from its policy to denude the North-West of its own industry."

  1247
  I hope that in his reply the Minister will give us not comforting bromides but a promise of definite and specific action to help Manchester in its dismaying plight. We look for a message of hope. We hope that we shall not be disappointed.
  10.40 p.m.
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: I think that the whole House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) for raising again the problem of escalating unemployment in the greater Manchester area. Rationalisation, redundancy, unemployment, call it what we will, is by no means something new for my constituents. We have witnessed unemployment in many differing forms. However, what is causing anxiety and alarm in the Manchester area now is the new form of redundancy and unemployment which is manifesting itself in the city.
  We have seen virtually the decimation of the textile industry in the Failsworth area of my constituency. Only months ago we saw the loss of 600 jobs at the British Steel Corporation at Openshaw. We have seen the closure of Beyer Peacock, a great industrial combine, the closing of the Admiralty Gunnery Depot and the closing of the Bradford Colliery in my constituency. Unemployment in its many and varied forms has been inflicted on my constituents and on the residents of Manchester in general.
  When the Under-Secretary of State replied to a similar debate last year I intervened towards the end and invited him to come and see the problem for himself. It is all very well to sit on the Government Front Bench looking upon unemployment as a statistical academic exercise, but unemployment for my constituents is a real, human problem. It affects so many of their domestic lives. I realise that the Under-Secretary's programme for visits to the regions is intense and pressurised, but I hope he will accept the invitation of my hon. Friends the Members for the Manchester constituencies of Ardwick, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), Blackley (Mr. Rose) and Gorton (Mr. Marks) and myself to come and discuss the problem with our constituents in the city and see for himself
  1248
  at first hand the human suffering which has arisen as a consequence.
  10.42 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Marks: The figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) concerning the number of people who are affected by unemployment give us cause to reflect on a very serious situation.
  I believe that there are three causes for the Government's failure to improve the situation. One is the lack of confidence of investors, management and workers. We have had too many optimistic speeches from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in particular and their optimism has not been well-founded.
  The City of Manchester is in the middle of a huge programme of clearance of old dwellings and the building of new houses. However, as the new houses go up, the factories are closing. One reason is that many factories are outdated. A great many firms operate in buildings that are not only old but are designed for a different purpose from that for which they are used.
  Dawson Barfos mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick and which is to close in March with the loss of 250 jobs, is one of a group of factories in various parts of the country. The firm needs to reinvest in new machinery, but the building is not good enough for the job, so the work is going to more modern factories in the South. I am sure that this example could be repeated many times.
  The local authorities in the area have put forward a sensible plan to extend the definition of derelict land to include industrial buildings and to make improvement grants available for industrial buildings as they are for houses. That plan was put to the Government five months ago. In view of the Government's failure to live up to their optimistic promises and forecasts, I urge them to accept that plan now.
  I have one final point. There has been a rapid decline in the number of apprenticeships. Many of these are now taken up not by school leavers but by boys whose apprenticeships are interrupted by redundancy. I urge the Government to make more training available, to remind

  1249
  firms that there will not be any 15-yearolds leaving school next year and to stockpile apprentices now.
  Mr. Paul B. Rose: Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I ask him to consider the future of the aircraft industry in the Manchester area? Would he join me in asking the Minister for an undertaking about Hawker-Siddeley, which the Minister has not given in spite of being asked for it as much as three months ago?
  Mr. Marks: Certainly, and most definitely in connection with the Hawker-Siddeley 748.
  10.45 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) on his success in obtaining this debate. He has, however, been less than fair to my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) and Moss Side (Mr. Frank Taylor), with whom I frequently discuss the problems of Manchester and who, the hon. Member may rest assured, are just as concerned about the city's problems as he is. I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Withington earlier this afternoon and I understand perfectly why he cannot be here now.
  This is by no means the first occasion when the unemployment problems of Manchester have been raised in the House in recent months, and I recognise the great concern of both the hon. Member for Ardwick and his colleagues as well as of those outside this House who are very rightly concerned with the level of unemployment in the Manchester travel-to-work area.
  Let me assure hon. Members at once that the Government are fully alive to the problems of Manchester and there is no question of complacency on their part over the situation there. The present unemployment figures are unacceptably high, and we fully appreciate what these mean for those who are at present without jobs. But in facing the realities of the situation, and acknowledging the considerable impact which major closures and redundancies have had on the area in recent years, I do not share the despondency and gloom expressed by the hon. Member for Ardwick and his hon.
  1250
  Friends. To begin with we have to accept that Manchester, in common with all other major industrial areas, has been undergoing structural change and rationalisation, consequent upon the need to meet the challenge of new technologies as well as to meet cost inflation.
  I certainly do not seek to minimise the substantial number of redundancies that have taken place or may take place in the future, but the fact that most of the larger ones have been the subject of long notice or have been phased over a period of several months has at least lessened their impact. It has enabled many of the workers concerned to find other jobs in the extensive Manchester travel-to-work area, in which the full services of the Department of Employment are constantly available, especially in regard to major closures. I appreciate that natural wastage has played a part in reducing the number of redundancies and that the generous redundancy payments have also assisted to cushion their impact.
  The Manchester district has shown a remarkable resilience in recent years. This fact is borne out by Manchester's unemployment levels. An analysis of wholly unemployed in the Manchester travel-to-work area as compared with those of Great Britain during the past 18 months shows that except for December and January the monthly percentage rates for Manchester have remained consistently below those for Great Britain. In December and January the wholly unemployed rate rose above the national rate by 0·1 per cent. and 0·2 per cent. respectively. As I have already stressed the present situation gives no grounds for complacency, but it shows that Manchester's unemployment has closely followed the national trend. The current wholly unemployed rate of 4·3 per cent. is, moreover, well below the corresponding rate for the North-West Region as a whole of 4·8 per cent.
  We have heard tonight of the fears that recent job losses spell the decline of a great industrial and commercial centre, and that the Government's industrial development certificate policy seriously inhibits further industrial development. I cannot emphasise too strongly that these fears are groundless. Despite heavy job losses, Manchester has a wide

  1251
  and strongly based variety of manufacturing industries as well as a large services sector. In our natural anxiety for the 4·3 per cent. unemployed we should not forget the 95·7 per cent. of Mancunians who are working and working more efficiently and more productively than ever before.
  When looking at the problems of Manchester we must try and see the picture in proper perspective. We are not considering a small district having only one or two industries on which the livelihood of the local population depends. We are dealing with a great and proud centre of industrial strength, and long-standing commercial tradition with wide and strongly-based industries, comprising not only older industries, such as textiles, but those dependent on modern engineering technologies. Its insured population is about 700,000, about 120,000 of whom are employed in a wide variety of engineering and other metal-working industries; 30,000 in clothing; rather less than 20,000 in textiles; 26,000 in the oil and chemical industries; 30,000 in food, drink and tobacco; and many thousands in the paper, printing and publishing trades.
  In addition there is a very substantial and growing services sector employing about 380,000, of whom 150,000 are engaged in public administration, education, medical and other professional services. It is clear that with Manchester's excellent location and its commercial reputation the potential for further development of the services sector alone will be very considerable in the climate of an expanding business economy.
  I turn now to the subject of Manchester's industrial development. Here the need speaks for itself. But it is quite clear that local industrial development has not stood still. Some of the references which have been made, in the House and elsewhere, to the policy followed by successive Governments in regard to the issuing of industrial development certificates for Manchester imply that a totally restrictive policy is applied.
  Whatever the position was under the previous Administration, this is not so now. Applications for I.D.C.s are sympathetically considered, in full recognition of the close ties to the Manchester area which many new projects are likely
  1252
  to have. This is borne out by the fact that from January, 1970, to December, 1971, a total of 161 I.D.C.s were approved for the Manchester area. Applicants estimated that these new projects would give rise to nearly 3,000 new jobs, over 2,000 of them for men, when they were completed and fully manned. Over the same period only one I.D.C. was refused.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Perhaps I may interrupt this dreary monologue. The hon. Gentleman is not replying to the debate. Will he address himself to the suggestion that he should visit the Manchester area at the earliest possible date?
  Mr. Grant: I am answering the point about I.D.C.s which was specifically raised by the hon. Member for Ardwick. I emphasised that over that period only one I.D.C. was refused.
  I repeat that, subject only to the paramount requirements of the development areas, our policy has been liberally interpreted in the Manchester area and full account taken of the ties that projects may have to the area. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to pay full regard to the employment needs of Manchester in this respect.
  Hon. Members have rehearsed the case for intermediate area status for Manchester, and I can assure them that their points have been carefully noted.
  I would, however, remind hon. Members that it is only in recent months that Manchester's total registered unemployment has risen marginally above the national rate, and at 4·3 per cent. in January it remains well below the rate for the North-West Region as a whole. I cannot accept the contention of the hon. Member for Ardwick that these figures are clear evidence of regional decline. With its wide diversity of existing industry and its strong base of commercial activity which is well capable of expansion, Manchester is well placed to feel quickly the benefits of the expansion in the economy which the Government are seeking to bring about.
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: This is the same speech as we heard last time.
  Mr. Grant: I do not have to remind hon. Members in great detail of what has been done: the reductions in taxation, the improvements in capital allowances, cuts

  1253
  in purchase tax and the halving of S.E.T. In addition we have reduced Bank Rate and abandoned controls on hire purchase—everything the North-West Industrial Development Association said was required. This is precisely what we have done. This was what we needed to give an upturn to the economy.
  On 7th February my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced measures to enable eyesores to be removed in the assisted and derelict land clearance areas, both to improve the appearance of these areas and to provide employment. Manchester, as part of the North West Region Derelict Land Clearance Area, should benefit from these schemes, which have to be completed by June, 1973.
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: This speech is intolerable.
  Mr. Grant: Further evidence of the Government's determination to deal with unemployment has been demonstrated by the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment concerning plans for greatly expanding industrial training facilities. As hon. Members will know, the setting up of a new Government training centre for Trafford Park was announced last July. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members do not like this, but they are going to get it whether they like it or not.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. Hon. Members have had their say. They must allow the Minister to reply.
  Mr. Grant: In that connection it is very encouraging to note that plans for the completion of the two plants by Shell Chemicals are going ahead and that completion is expected by the end of 1973.
  I should also like to refer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Man
  1254
  chester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), if he can take the trouble to pay attention.
  Mr. Rose: I have been waiting three months for an answer.
  Mr. Grant: The placing of further Nimrod orders with Hawker-Siddeley, which the Defence Department recently announced, will provide work at both the firm's factories for some time to come.
  By the time the Government's measures have worked through the economy—
  Mr. Rose: Nonsense.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) must not address the House from a sedentary position. He has had his say already.
  Mr. Rose: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Grant: No.
  By the time the Government's measures have worked through the economy I have no doubt that Manchester's many advantages, including location and the traditional skills of her people, will have attracted investment for which there is a viable future. I hope that everyone with the interests of Manchester at heart, including hon. Members opposite, will do everything they can to encourage local initiative whenever and wherever possible.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

SOCIAL SERVICES
  Retirement Pensions (Review)
  Retirement Pensions (Review)
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Medical Facilities (Leicestershire)
  Medical Facilities (Leicestershire)
  Senagraphic X-ray Machines
  Senagraphic X-ray Machines
  Departmental Publications
  Departmental Publications
  International Voluntary Service
  International Voluntary Service
  Strikes (Benefit)
  Strikes (Benefit)
  Family Planning Association
  Family Planning Association
  Heating Allowances (Pensioners)
  Heating Allowances (Pensioners)
  Cigarettes
  Cigarettes
  Hypothermia (Deaths)
  Hypothermia (Deaths)
  Family Planning
  Family Planning
  Middlesex Hospital
  Middlesex Hospital
  Retirement Age
  Retirement Age
  Social Security Payments (Abuse)
  Social Security Payments (Abuse)
  Birth Control Pills
  Birth Control Pills
  Hearing Aids
  Hearing Aids
  Dental Services
  Dental Services
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Blood Levels (Lead)
  Blood Levels (Lead)
  Widows' Pensions
  Widows' Pensions
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Homeless Children
  Homeless Children
  Social Research (Voluntary Bodies)
  Social Research (Voluntary Bodies)
  Strategy of Pensions (Contributions)
  Strategy of Pensions (Contributions)
  Means Tests
  Means Tests
  Human Tissue Act
  Human Tissue Act
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Pharmacies (Opening Hours)
  Pharmacies (Opening Hours)
  Pensions (Self-Employed Persons)
  Pensions (Self-Employed Persons)
  Royal Hampshire County Hospital
  Royal Hampshire County Hospital
  Alcoholics
  Alcoholics
  Manchester Hospitals
  Manchester Hospitals
  Retirement Pensioners (Income Tax)
  Retirement Pensioners (Income Tax)
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  Unemployment and Supplementary Benefit
  Unemployment and Supplementary Benefit
  Voluntary Youth Organisations
  Voluntary Youth Organisations
  Hospitals (Appointments Cards)
  Hospitals (Appointments Cards)
  Auxiliary Medical Services
  Auxiliary Medical Services
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Retirement Pensions (Over-80s)
  Retirement Pensions (Over-80s)
  Cruse Club
  Cruse Club
  General Household Survey
  General Household Survey
  Chemists (Opening Hours)
  Chemists (Opening Hours)
  Mass Radiography
  Mass Radiography
  Broadmoor Hospital
  Broadmoor Hospital
  Cancer
  Cancer
  Vasectomy
  Vasectomy
  Hospital Waiting List (Southampton)
  Hospital Waiting List (Southampton)
  Ear, Nose and Throat Diseases (In-Patient Accommodation)
  Ear, Nose and Throat Diseases (In-Patient Accommodation)
  Nursing Staff (Shortage)
  Nursing Staff (Shortage)
  Hospitals (Northern Region)
  Hospitals (Northern Region)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Ex-Far East Prisoners of War
  Ex-Far East Prisoners of War
  Nurses' Pay
  Nurses' Pay
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIESAND FOOD
  Floriade Exhibition, Amsterdam
  Floriade Exhibition, Amsterdam
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Post-War Credits (RepaymentCentres)
  Post-War Credits (RepaymentCentres)
  Value-Added Tax
  Value-Added Tax
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  Non-Profit Companies
  Non-Profit Companies
ENVIRONMENT
  Goods Vehicle Drivers (Casualties)
  Goods Vehicle Drivers (Casualties)
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  Lorry Parks
  Lorry Parks
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Road Safety (Schools)
  Road Safety (Schools)
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Motorway Accidents
  Motorway Accidents
  Council House Building
  Council House Building
  Driving Licences (Epileptics)
  Driving Licences (Epileptics)
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  Parliamentary Building (Design)
  Parliamentary Building (Design)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Departmental Performance(Monitoring)
  Departmental Performance(Monitoring)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Schools (Kettering)
  Schools (Kettering)
  James Report (Consultations)
  James Report (Consultations)
  Animal Technicians
  Animal Technicians
  Schools (Eye)
  Schools (Eye)
  Polytechnics
  Polytechnics
WALES
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Council Housing
  Council Housing
  Rent Increases
  Rent Increases
  Old Schools
  Old Schools
  Primary Schools (Replacement)
  Primary Schools (Replacement)
  Primary School Classes
  Primary School Classes
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Remand in Custody
  Remand in Custody
  Downing Street (Delegations)
  Downing Street (Delegations)
  Younger Committee on Privacy
  Younger Committee on Privacy
  Fire Extinguishers
  Fire Extinguishers
  Welsh-speaking Prisoners
  Welsh-speaking Prisoners
  Police
  Police
  Fire Services (Casualties)
  Fire Services (Casualties)
  Summer Time
  Summer Time
  Charity Commissioners
  Charity Commissioners
EMPLOYMENT
  Picketing
  Picketing
  Construction Workers (Casualties)
  Construction Workers (Casualties)
  Coventry Tool Room Dispute
  Coventry Tool Room Dispute
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Building Trade (Southampton)
  Building Trade (Southampton)
  Hartlepool
  Hartlepool
  State of Emergency (Unemployment Benefit)
  State of Emergency (Unemployment Benefit)
  Engineering (Guaranteed Week Agreement)
  Engineering (Guaranteed Week Agreement)
DEFENCE
  Departmental Dispersal
  Departmental Dispersal
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  UNEMPLOYMENT (PRIMEMINISTER'S CORRESPONDENCE)
  UNEMPLOYMENT (PRIMEMINISTER'S CORRESPONDENCE)
  MINING AREAS
  MINING AREAS
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECHES)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECHES)
  EALING
  EALING
  YORKSHIRE DALES NATIONAL PARK
  YORKSHIRE DALES NATIONAL PARK
  TRADES UNION CONGRESS
  TRADES UNION CONGRESS
  ETON AND SLOUGH
  ETON AND SLOUGH
  CONSUMER PROTECTION
  CONSUMER PROTECTION
  NORTHERN REGION
  NORTHERN REGION
  MERSEYSIDE UNEMPLOYMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
  MERSEYSIDE UNEMPLOYMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
  YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE
  YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE
  REGIONAL POLICIES
  REGIONAL POLICIES
  NORTH-WEST REGION
  NORTH-WEST REGION
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Council of Europe
  Council of Europe
  Australia (United Kingdom Land Ownership)
  Australia (United Kingdom Land Ownership)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
SCOTLAND
  Occupation Centres (Staff Training)
  Occupation Centres (Staff Training)
  National Parks
  National Parks
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Vinter Committee on Nuclear Energy
  Vinter Committee on Nuclear Energy
  Members' Correspondence
  Members' Correspondence
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Dan Air Comet Crash (Report)
  Dan Air Comet Crash (Report)
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Flintshire (Status)
  Flintshire (Status)
  Special Development Areas
  Special Development Areas
  Miners (Casualties)
  Miners (Casualties)

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 Lincoln.

ROAD CONGESTION AND SLOW-MOVING TRAFFIC
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would consider issuing regulations to require the driver of a farm tractor, or any other slow-moving motor vehicle that is impeding the flow of traffic on the public highway, to draw up at the nearest lay-by, in order to allow faster-moving following traffic an opportunity to overtake.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, where such slow-moving vehicles are in narrow country lanes there are no established lay-bys. On busy roads with frequent lay-bys a slow-moving vehicle under the suggested restriction could have difficulty in making progress at all. Regulations to cover these extremes and the wide range of conditions between them would be difficult to frame and to enforce. I fully recognise the frustration which can be caused by such vehicles but, on balance, the solution must lie in the exercise of common sense and mutual courtesy between road users.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, are the Government aware that exhortation is not enough and that the old-time courtesy is now a diminishing factor on the roads? Are they also aware that, as a result of the large number of new drivers and new cars on the roads, and especially the influx of large lorries from the Continent, one slow-moving vehicle can hold up 50 or more cars on the road? Are the Government really prepared to sit back and do nothing about these changed conditions on the roads?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: No, my Lords. The Government are obviously not prepared to sit back and do nothing. The programme for motor-way and trunk road improvements is going ahead. I answered last week the point about heavy freight vehicles from abroad and, as I told the House then, I think that matter will be dealt with shortly. I do not think there is any more one can say. It is a matter of common sense. All vehicles belonging to the Services have discipline in this matter and they know that they ought not to bunch. Also, one does not normally get bunching of large lorries driving in convoy. I think that the more people drive the more they will learn this lesson.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, while recognising that it is important for doctors to get along the road without delay—and that might include the noble Lord who put the Question—may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that his reply will be warmly welcomed by those of us who have experience of farm tractors, which are usually bent on important agricultural work and do not generally travel very great distances? A little patience will get one past them without delaying them at all.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. The tortoise sometimes arrives ahead of the hare, as one knows.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is possible for the appropriate Government Department to call the attention of local authorities to the situation on very narrow country roads, which in some counties is quite serious? Many of these roads have no lay-bys and the local authority, being the road authority, could supply them.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords. I will certainly pass on that suggestion to my right honourable friend.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, are the Government, like a slow-moving vehicle, always to be overtaken by events? As the Highway Code makes no reference to the changed conditions on the roads, is it not time that it was brought a little more up to date?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the object of the Highway

391
Code is to give advice to all road users. To keep it short and readable, the contents are made applicable to all road users and not to particular groups.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that in the interests of road safety every opportunity should be given to allow fast-moving traffic which has been frustrated to get past as soon as possible, as the noble Lord has suggested?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords. But the road programme is gradually doing this—indeed, not so gradually: it is coming on pretty fast.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE: FUTURE ROLE
2.40 p.m.
LORD HOY: 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 any changes are contemplated regarding the future role of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, my right honourable friend outlined the main functions of his Department in a White Paper (Cmnd. 4564) presented to Parliament in January, 1971. He indicated then that, in addition to the changes which he proposed to make and which are being introduced over the period to 1974, certain of its functions might need modification in the event that the United Kingdom entered the E.E.C. These modifications will follow as we adapt our support system to the Common Agricultural Policy. The Ministry will continue to play its part in shaping the wider issues of food, agricultural and fisheries policy, and in discharging its specific responsibilities towards consumers and the food, agricultural and fisheries industries within the wider context of our membership of the Communities.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. May I assume from it that there is no intention on the part of the Government, in
392
view of our entry into the Common Market and the importance of agriculture to this country, to allow the Ministry to be absorbed into or amalgamated with any other Government Department?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, My Lords, the noble Lord may assume that.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, in view of this country's entry into the Common Market, is it not essential that we have a strong Ministry of Agriculture to represent our interests and to contend with the other members of the E.E.C.?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords.

NORTHERN IRELAND: FRONTIER WITH EIRE
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: 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—
(1) What would be the estimated saving in numbers of battalions or equivalent units serving in Northern Ireland (at the current rate of deployment) if the area West of the River Foyle in Londonderry (Creggan and Bogside) and the area in and around Newry were transferred to the Irish Republic in a frontier adjustment; and
(2) What would be the approximate annual savings on unemployment and social service benefits and National Health costs et cetera resulting from such a transfer.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, this information is not available.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that detailed Answer, may I ask him this question? Since it has been announced in the Press that from time to time there have been up to seven battalions in Londonderry and even more in Newry, and as the savings which would be brought about by the transfer of that hostile population elsewhere must be considerable, why cannot Her Majesty's Government do so at once? Secondly,

393
would it not be a good example to those remaining in Northern Ireland if some action like this were taken, so that the people there could see how much better off they were financially than if they were South of the Border?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it is self-evident, I think, that the Government's policy towards Northern Ireland does not depend primarily on what the Province or any part of it might cost in terms of public payments or military effort.

DISCLAIMED PEERAGES AND SUBSIDIARY TITLES
2.43 p.m.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: 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 the effect of Section 3(1)(a) of the Peerage Act 1963 is that a person who disclaims any peerage or peerages thereby irrevocably divests himself of all right or interest to or in the peerage or peerages disclaimed, and of all titles, rights, offices, privileges and precedence attaching thereto; and whether this construction can be reconciled with the continued use by such a person of one of the subsidiary titles which he has specifically disclaimed.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLIC0E): My Lords, the interpretation of the Peerage Act 1963 is for the courts to decide upon when and if the matter arises for consideration. Her Majesty's Government have no authority to make interpretations of Statutes.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, is my noble friend the Leader of the House not aware that in 1962 the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform reported, among other things, in paragraph 3, that the
"… Committee considered that it would be objectionable to allow Peers to retain the use of their titles while sitting in the House of Commons";
and that it further recommended, in paragraph 6(n):
"a Peer who surrenders his peerage should not be entitled to any of the titles, privileges, immunities or precedence attached to peerage
394
and should have in every respect the status of a commoner"?
Will Her Majesty's Government invite Her Majesty, under the sign Manual, to regulate the use of subsidiary titles by those who have, for their own reasons, specifically and irrevocably disclaimed them? Furthermore, my Lords, is this not a matter which impinges upon the privileges of your Lordships' House?
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this simple question? Is it not the plain duty of the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Lord Chancellor here to refer to any Member of another place by the nomenclature which is in use there? Is it not also the fact that it is the duty of the Speaker of the House of Commons in another place to refer to anybody who has been returned to Parliament in the terms in which his Writ returned him? I am sorry to be so long, but is it not also a fact that courtesy titles are not titles at all but are merely names, like "Mr. Brown"? Therefore, if a man is returned as "Lord Lambton" in his Writ, that is not a title at all: it is merely a name under which he passes, and must pass, because he is so returned by his Writ.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Napier and Ettrick for reminding me of the import of the 1962 Report of the Joint Committee on the reform of this House. I should not like to give an off-the-cuff answer to the other supplementaries which he put to me, but what I would say in reply to him and to my noble friend Lord Swinton is that, while I have no authority whatsoever to interpret the law, I am advised—and I think this is a matter of common knowledge—that there is a distinction to be made between the title attaching to a Peerage, which is subject to Section 3 of the Peerage Act 1963, and courtesy titles, which are not so subject. In answer to my noble friend Lord Swinton. I think all I can say is that how a Member of another place is referred to in another place is a matter for that other place.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that the Speaker's ruling on this matter is constitutionally valid?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, do not think it would be right for me either to

395
question or not to question the validity of the ruling of the Speaker of another place, more especially when the matter is due to be debated in another place. But of course I do recognise, my Lords, that this is a matter of unique national importance, and I shall give it my close and continuing attention. Nevertheless, I believe that at this particular time there may be other matters with which this country is confronted which are perhaps of even greater urgency and importance.
LORD HOY: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that we have had two rulings from another place that are diametrically opposed to each other? Perhaps we had better wait a little before we make up our minds what we want to do.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that is in the nature of dialectic.

HEALTH SERVICE COMMISSIONER
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Aberdare will be making a Statement on the appointment of a Health Service Commissioner.
NEATH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
RAILWAY CLEARING SYSTEM SUPERANNUATION FUND BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. COMPANION TO THE STANDING ORDERS AND GUIDE TO THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE
The Committee have considered and approved the proof of the new "Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords" and recommend that the House should authorise the Clerk of the Parliaments to publish it in that form and lay it on the Table of the House.
2. THE PREVIOUS QUESTION
The Committee have reviewed the procedure of the Previous Question as described on page 57 of the 1963 edition of the Companion. They observe that the procedure is complicated and is not readily understood by the House; that the Previous Question is liable to be confused with the Closure, although the Previous Question has a different purpose—namely that the House should not reach a decision on the Question before it; and finally, that it gives rise to anomalies of voting, since a Lord who moves the Previous Question has, in order to achieve his object, to vote NOT CONTENT On the Question "whether the Question on the original Motion be now put" For these reasons the Committee consider that the purpose of the Previous Question would be better and more intelligibly achieved by the motion "That the House do proceed to the next business". Accordingly, they recommend that for the passage on the Previous Question on page 57 of the present edition of the Companion there should be substituted the following:—
"The 'Next Business' Motion
A Lord who considers it undesirable that the House should record an opinion on a Motion that has been moved may, at any time during the course of the debate, move
'That the House do proceed to the next business'
It is desirable that notice should, if possible, be given. A 'Next Business' Motion supersedes the original Motion before the House and, if it is agreed to, the Question on the original Motion is not put, and the debate ends. If it is disagreed to, the debate on the original Motion may be resumed and the Question is put in the usual way.
The 'Next Business' Motion is debatable and, since it cannot be debated without reference to the original Motion, the subject matter of both Motions may be debated together. It should be distinguished from the Closure—'That the Question be now put'—which is not debatable (and so requires an immediate conclusion) and which, if carried. compels the House at once to come to a decision on the original Motion.
The 'Next Business' Motion is not admitted on an amendment; though, after an amendment has been agreed to, it may be moved on the original Motion as

397
amended. It may not be moved in any Committee of the House.
This Motion has replaced the older procedure known as the Previous Question."
3. PROCEDURE FOR HOLDING SHORT DEBATES ON WEDNESDAYS
The Committee have considered the procedure for holding short Wednesday debates on an experimental basis until Whitsun, and make the following recommendations to the House:—

(a) East such debate should last not more than two-and-a-half hours; allowance should be made for interruptions to the debate, e.g. for Ministerial Statements;

(b) Adequate time should be allowed for the reply from the Government Front-Bench (and for the Opposition, if they so desire) and for the Mover in reply. Since, however, the debate has a fixed time limit, it is desirable that the period of the winding-up speeches should be kept to a minimum;

(c) At the end of the time allowed, the Clerk at the Table should rise and bow to the Lord on the Woolsack. Thereupon, the Lord on the Woolsack should inquire of the mover of the Motion whether he desires the leave of the House to withdraw his Motion; if not, or if leave is withheld, he should put the Question to the House forth-with;

(d) Lords should be allowed to place one Motion only in Part II of "No Day Named" for the period of the experiment; during which any Lord who had been chosen once would be debarred from competing again; and

(e) The responsibility for drawing up the Speaker's List for such debates should be the same as for other debates in consultation with the mover of the Motion.

4. PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS ON FRIDAYS AND ON OTHER DAYS WHEN THE HOUSE SITS BEFORE ONE P.M.
The Committee recommend that any Private Notice Question should be submitted to the Leader of the House before 10 a.m. on days when the House sits before One p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
MINERAL EXPLORATION AND INVESTMENT GRANTS BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
NEW ZEALAND AND AUSTRALIAN LAND COMPANY LIMITED ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.

SHORT WEDNESDAY DEBATES
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That for the purpose of the short debates to be held on February 23, March 29, April 26 and May 24 the following experimental procedure, notwithstanding any Standing Order to the contrary shall apply:—
If the debate is still continuing on the lapse of 2½ hours from its beginning (after making due allowance for any interruption), the Clerk at the Table shall rise, and thereupon the Lord on the Woolsack shall ask the Mover whether or not he wishes to withdraw his Motion. If the Mover does not withdraw, or if leave to withdraw is refused, the Lord on the Woolsack shall put the Question forthwith. —(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEFENCE ESTIMATES
2.52 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON) rose to move, That this House takes note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1972. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Those noble Lords who remember our debate on Defence last year will recollect that I thought it right to ask your Lordships' permission to speak again at the end of the debate. This seemed sensible, since a number of questions were then likely to be asked (and will again be likely to be asked) which it would be difficult for any other Minister to answer except at second hand. Accordingly I propose, if the House will agree, not to make a second speech at the end of the debate but to confine myself to answering the questions which have been asked me and perhaps adding one or two comments of my own, and consequentially to make a fairly short speech now.
I suppose there may be some in this House who may complain that the White Paper this year is rather dull and that no great issues of policy are announced

399
and no great changes are made. The Goverment and I, as Secretary of State for Defence, congratulate ourselves most warmly on that. It is a great mistake to suppose that because our Parliamentary practice is to produce a White Paper annually in February that it should necessarily contain anything that is new or anything that is not known; or, indeed, to make changes for the sake of making changes. Indeed, one of the criticisms that one might justifiably level against the noble Lords opposite when they were in power is not only the frequency of their White Papers—which averaged a good deal more than one a year—but the fact that the policy kept changing. This led to uncertainty, instability and other side effects with which I shall deal later.
I made it clear in June, 1970, that our purpose was to achieve stability for the Armed Forces after this period of considerable uncertainty. This White Paper is a progress report on how we are doing, how we are doing on manpower, and how we are doing on the maintentance of a sound financial basis for our policy. Last year I commented on the sombre international scene and said that over the last decade it seemed to me that the military balance had swung against the West. I do not think with any honesty I could say that the situation has changed.
Soviet military power continues to grow and Chapter I of the White Paper gives the essential facts and figures. The most significant perhaps is the cost of the Soviet defence effort to its economy. Not even the United States a present plans to sustain, as the Russians are doing, a defence budget equal to 8 per cent. of the gross national product. During the past few years the Russians have provided 25 extra divisions so that even given their difficulties with China there need be no reduction of their forces facing NATO. In the nuclear field Russia has now nuclear parity with the West in terms of delivery systems, even though we still have more warheads.
The Soviet Navy continues to increase in size and efficiency. Ten years ago there were virtually no Soviet warships deployed outside Russian waters. By 1968 the maximum level at any one time had amounted to 70 warships; and four years later, in 1972, the peak has doubled to 140. The build-up of the Soviet Navy is relatively recent, so
400
that its ships are modern and its armaments sophisticated. The emergence of this modern, powerfully-armed force, capable of offensive operations on a world scale, is one of the most significant changes in the balance of military power in the decade.
But, having said that, there are of course some hopeful signs which we must welcome. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks between the Russians and the Americans have made some useful progress. The Federal German Republic has concluded treaties with the Soviet Union and Poland, though they have yet to be ratified. We have reached a Four Power Agreement on Berlin supported by an Inner German Agreement on its implementation. Certainly we must hope that all these factors will pave the way for a European Security Conference in the not too distant future. There has however been no progress on the problem of mutual and balanced force reductions. It has been disappointing that the Russians have not responded to the proposal that Signor Brosio should go to Moscow. It may well be that the Russians have discovered, as I have told your Lordships on a number of occasions, that it is more difficult to find a formula that guarantees security and is at the same time negotiable than they had previously supposed.
What then is the strategic and political significance of this vast Soviet armaments programme, coupled with some rather spasmodic indications of détente? Perhaps it is the understandable attempt by the Soviet Union to gain parity with the West, and in particular with the Americans. The significance then may be primarily political; but the concentration of military forces on this scale cannot just be written off in this way. The fact is that in Europe the Warsaw Pact has a marked superiority over the West and the effect of this; together with the way in which the natural emphasis on détente is being emphasised, means that we shall have to be increasingly careful of the unity and resolution and stability of the NATO Alliance.
All this leads me to believe that there is ample justification for the size of our forces. Indeed in common I suppose with most Defence Secretaries, I wish they were rather larger, though all of us, wherever we sit in the House, have

401
to recognise that the size of the Defence budget must be limited by the very proper calls on our resources by other Departments. Perhaps the most encouraging feature in the NATO scene over these last twelve months has been the increased role which the Eurogroup has played. Not only have we mounted between us the European Defence Improvement Programme worth by itself a billion dollars over five years, but we have presented to our American allies facts and figures which indicate that next year the defence budgets of the European countries of NATO will show a net increase of half a billion dollars in real terms on the year before, and have set out in detail the way in which as a result of re-equipment the capability of those forces has improved.
I believe that the Eurogroup has played a significant role in reassuring not only the American administration but also, and more particularly, Congress and the better informed members of the public in the United States, of the awareness of Europe that it should take more share in the burden of European defence.
In all this we have played our national part, by the acceleration of our naval construction programme; by the revival of the four battalions which had been reduced to company strength; by the ordering of Bucaneers and Nimrods to form more squadrons in the Royal Air Force. As I say, my Lords, I have been greatly encouraged by the collaboration and co-operation which I, as Chairman of the Eurogroup, received from my other defence colleagues, and I have no doubt that Herr Schmidt, the German Minister of Defence, who has now taken over, will find the same co-operation as I did.
Outside Europe the Five-Power defence arrangements in Malaysia and Singapore have been finalised and the Commander of the ANZUC forces, Admiral Wells, an Australian Admiral, has assumed command of the British, Australian and New Zealand components. I have no doubt that this agreement will make a significant contribution to the stability of the area. In the Gulf the Union of Arab Emirates has been formed after a difficult period in which it was not certain what the outcome of our efforts was going to be. We have entered into new treaties of friendship, and we shall continue,
402
by visits of ships, aircraft and soldiers, together with loan personnel and a British Military Advisory Team at Sharjah, to display an active interest in the area.
My Lords, this year's Defence Estimates total over £2,850 million, which represents about 5½ per cent. of the gross national product, a higher proportion than that devoted to defence by any of our major European allies. The total is in real terms about £100 million higher than was forecast for 1972–73 a year ago. There are two reasons. First, there is a technical matter of accounting convention which, unless your Lordships insist, I shall not even try to explain. The other represents the cost of the additional ships, infantry and aircraft to which I have just referred. Manpower accounts for 50 per cent. of the Budget compared with 44 per cent. ten years ago. This high level of expenditure of manpower inevitably limits the amount available for re-equipment, and this raises great problems both for the Forces and also for industry and is something which we in the Ministry of Defence are studying with great care at the present time. For manpower and equipment are obviously the two big spenders.
First, manpower. Your Lordships wilt remember that we inherited a very grave manpower situation, and I believe, as I said earlier, that one of the factors which caused this was the uncertainty created by the changes of policy of the previous Government. This last year there has been a very encouraging recovery in manpower figures. During 1971–72 we shall have recruited over 46,000 male other ranks into the three Services, and it would have been more had not the Royal Air Force been able to reduce their intake through more economic use of manpower. As it is, this year's total will be nearly 20 per cent. greater than last year's and it is worth recalling, 65 per cent. more than in 1968–69 when recruiting was at its worst. This is a satisfactory achievement, though there are still some areas of shortage. For example, the young officer entry into Sandhurst has been very disappointing. Nevertheless the position is much more satisfactory than it was, and I know that the whole House will share my pleasure in that.
As to the cause of it, I think that there are a number of causes. There is

403
the employment situation; better rates of pay; the promise of a stable career; and even Northern Ireland, where the Army has acquitted itself so well and with such public support; and perhaps a belief by the public at large that the Forces, whether in Northern Ireland or anywhere else, are doing a job that is worth doing, and are doing it well.
It has been the Government's constant purpose to demonstrate, by action as well as words, their belief that defence is important and that the Services should have their proper place in the life of the nation. But I think I must sound one note of warning. It is not going to be easy to maintain and sustain recruitment at its present level. The number of young men of recruiting age is declining. More of them are staying on at school, and this trend will be reinforced when the school leaving age is raised later this year. This means that we cannot afford to be complacent and must continue our efforts to improve conditions of service and keep them competitive with those of civilian employment. This we have tried to do. Pay, pensions, local overseas allowances, have been, or are about to be, improved. The terms of engagement for boy Servicemen as the result of the Report of the Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson—to whom all of us ought to be very grateful—have been improved. In this White Paper we have introduced the Notice Engagement which will enable men, subject to 18 months' notice and a basic minimum return of service, to leave at a time of their own choosing. I believe that this will be widely welcomed in the Services and will pay dividends in terms of new recruits and prolongation of service. Indeed, it follows on the lines of Lord Donaldson's thinking in his Report.
As for equipment, we are faced even more than with manpower with the problem of rising costs. Each succeeding generation of equipment is much more complex, much more sophisticated and much more difficult to maintain than its predecessor, and costs much more. Indeed, my Lords, I sometimes have the feeling that the only thing one knows about research, development and production of a sophisticated weapons system is that the eventual cost will be
404
more than one ever envisaged even in one's darkest dreams. We never have enough money to go round, and we are faced with the difficult choice between quality and quantity.
My Lords, having said that, I must put on record the fact that I believe that the new equipment which is coming into service now is as good, if not better, than anything anyone else has got. There are two factors which I believe are going to improve the situation. First, the setting up of the new Defence Procurement Executive under Mr. Ian Gilmour, with its Chief Executive, Mr. Derek Rayner. It has been going for only a very short time but I am convinced that it will show a notable improvement on the previous organisation. If I may say so, my Lords, we must not except too much of it too soon. But already aspects of the research and development organisation have been brought together under unified control and a plan has been prepared for the rationalisation of research and development establishments. This may take a bit of time since there are 30 establishments with a total staff of 30,000 and assets valued in the region of £100 million.
I believe, too, that the incorporation of the Procurement Executive in the Ministry of Defence will mean that the definition of operational requirements and collaboration with industry will be greatly improved. I do not wish, nor would any future Secretary of State wish, to be faced again with a situation in which—though British industry can develop by itself, or in collaboration with other, equipment such as, for example, EXOCET—unwise changes of policy or lack of foresight make it necessary to buy foreign equipment. But this is not the same thing as saying that there should be no collaboration with our friends in Europe: far from it. One of the most hopeful ways of overcoming the increasing cost and sophistication of equipments is to collaborate with others. Our entry into the E.E.C. will inevitably give a stimulus to this, and I believe that the Eurogroup can help this develop more quickly than otherwise it would. The military desirability of working more closely with our Allies points inescapably in this direction.
There are difficulties of course. It would be foolish not to recognise them.
The timing of the introduction of equipment or the need for it as between one country and another; the differences in operational requirements and the safeguarding of each country's industrial interests are only some of the problems that one obviously has to take into account. But if we want to do it, Europe can do it, and we must overcome these difficulties. As the White Paper shows, we are doing so in a number of fields. We are co-operating with France on the Martel system, three different types of helicopter and the Jaguar. We have joined forces with Germany and Italy in the development and production of the M.R.C.A. and in three artillery projects. The Belgians are co-operating with us in the development and production of a new family of air portable armoured reconnaissance vehicles. This is the beginning, and we must see to it that we do more and more collaboration with our friends.
Lastly, I think the House would expect me just to say a very few words about Malta and Northern Ireland. As to Malta, there is little I can add to the Statement that I made in this House last week. I then outlined the terms which had been offered to Mr. Mintoff by our NATO Allies and ourselves. They are, it seems to me, fair and reasonable. We are still in communication with Mr. Mintoff and it would not be right for me this afternoon to go any further, but I must say that at the present time the prospects for a satisfactory agreement do not seem to me to be very encouraging. In these circumstances the withdrawal of British Forces, which was requested by the Maltese Government at the end of last year, is continuing and will be completed by the end of March.
As to Northern Ireland, we had a full debate only three weeks ago and this does not seem to me to be the occasion to debate the whole question, both political and military. Let me just say that the Army will continue to fulfil their role of helping to restore and maintain law and order. They will continue to do so with total impartiality, concerned not with a man's religion or his politics but only with those who break the law. They will continue to do so with the patience and with the restraint, the determination and the courage that we expect from them until peace and justice are finally assured.
My Lords, Northern Ireland is a gloomy note to end on—58 British soldiers have now been killed there. This is a tragic situation. Nevertheless, it provides me with an opportunity to say, before I sit down, that the quality most to be seen in Northern Ireland, and indeed in all the Forces which I have had the privilege of visiting over this past year, has been their professionalism. This is the key note of the modern British Forces. They are volunteers and they are professional at their job: and because they are there and doing their job—sometimes in circumstances of great unpleasantness and difficulty—you and I, my Lords, will sleep easier in our beds to-night.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1972—(Lord Carrington).
3.15 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, before beginning my speech, may I ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Defence whether, when he comes to speak again, as he will by leave of the House, or at some other suitable time this afternoon, he can tell the House of any news there may be of the terrible tragedy that apparently has taken place in the mess of the Parachute Brigade at Aldershot and of which reports are just beginning to come through?
I should like to begin my remarks this afternoon by congratulating the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Defence on the rare, one might almost say unique, achievement of producing a Statement on Defence Estimates which is written in plain English. It is true, as The Times has pointed out, that it has some of the blandness of style of a chairman's annual report, and I did find myself wondering from time to time as I read it whether the noble Lord was going to set some kind of precedent by declaring a dividend on the Defence Estimates. But for all that, the White Paper is clearly written and easily read and it has, unusually, some useful and intelligible tables and diagrams.
It is of course, as the noble Lord has said, to a large extent no more than a progress report. It reflects no great decisions of policy and no sweeping changes in strategy. In my view it reveals at least one aspect of the military situation

407
which should give cause for serious concern. I refer to the military defence of Western Europe, which—and here I go further than the noble Lord—is to my mind in a state of dangerous confusion and disarray. It is with that problem, which I regard as much more urgent and serious than is generally realised, that I propose to concern myself principally in this debate, because I believe—and here I am choosing my words with great care—that the present strategy for European defence is one which would lead, in the event of an attack on Western Europe, to one of two immediate consequences: either the complete military collapse of Western Europe or the appalling catastrophe of a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union: and further, that in the present state of the world balance of power the collapse of Western Europe is by far the more likely result. If this sounds in some way a similar (though perhaps more positive) approach to the problem as that of the noble Lord in his opening remarks this afternoon, I must say that my conclusions from it, as will become obvious, are not quite the same.
Before I argue what is a very depressing proposition, there are one or two other points in the Statement on the Defence Estimates on which I should like to make a brief comment. First, there is the question of Northern Ireland. I must say that I am sorry to see the White Paper perpetuating what I believe to be a somewhat dubious distinction between physical brutality and what is called "a measure of ill-treatment". I think it must be clear to anyone who has read any of the literature of political indoctrination—say Arthur Koestler's Darkness at Noon, or any of Aleksandr Solzhenitsin's remarkable novels, especially perhaps A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich—that there are forms of psychological and mental pressure that are infinitely more brutal and damaging than physical violence; and their effects go deeper and last longer. I am not suggesting by any means that known terrorists under interrogation should be given V.I.P. treatment. But this country and its security forces have a record of compassion and civilised behaviour in these matters which lies at the heart of all we stand for and believe in, and we should
408
be setting out on a very dangerous path indeed if we began to fight our enemies, either within or without, with the weapons of barbarism and inhumanity which they themselves employ. I will go no further than that as a committee of distinguished Privy Counsellors is at present examining the whole question of interrogation procedures. But I would ask the noble Lord the Defence Secretary, who is himself a man of humanity and compassion, to assure the House that, so long as he is in his present position, he will forbid categorically deliberate ill-treatment of anyone, in Ireland or elsewhere, in the course of interrogation by the Armed Forces.
With regard to some of the criticisms that have been made about the behaviour of British troops in Northern Ireland, again I make no judgment while the Lord Chief Justice is conducting his Inquiry into the tragedy at Londonderry. All I would say is that my personal experience of British troops in action covers a world war, four guerrilla campaigns and riot duties in five cities, and I have only once ever seen a British soldier behave with calculated brutality and unnecessary violence, and he was court-martialled and severely punished. So until the contrary is proved I, for one, am prepared not only to accept but to endorse the statement in the Defence White Paper that the Armed Services are discharging their responsibilities with impartiality and with exemplary fortitude and restraint.
But here again I think a mild caveat might be in order. The Armed Forces are not impervious to outside pressures; they are a mirror of the society which they exist to serve. This is, as a glance at any morning paper will confirm—and perhaps to-day's events may be an even greater indication of this—an increasingly violent and undisciplined society. But the man who carries a gun in defence of the established order has a special responsibility to use it with an almost superhuman restraint and care. Minimum force has always been a basic principle of military operations in aid of the civil power, and I ask the Government to assure the House that it will continue to bear the full responsibility for seeing that this principle is adhered to. It would, in my view, be a dangerous and tragic development if any part of this responsibility were left to hard-pressed soldiers

409
on the ground. Of course the tactics of military operations must be for the military commander on the spot, and in the case of Northern Ireland there could be no more judicious and responsible a commander than Sir Harry Tuzo. But the basic principles are for the Government to lay down and for the Government to enforce.
I move now from Northern Ireland to a few brief points of detail in the White Paper. First of all, I congratulate the Government most sincerely on the success of their recruiting campaign and I am glad to know that they do not discount the difficulties that are likely to arise in the future. The new form of engagement for the three Services, which in effect allows a man to give 18 months' notice of his intention to sever his engagement, is an enlightened policy which seems to me to create a practical balance between stable and efficient forces (as was recognised in the excellent Report produced by the Committee which was chaired by my noble friend Lord Donaldson) and the importance of bringing the soldiers' commitment into line with the practice in other professions.
My Lords, there is another aspect of Government policy which seems to me rather less enlightened: it is that concerned with the sale of arms. I know that the establishment of a defence sales organisation was originally a decision of the Labour Government, but with the greatest circumspection I suggest to the noble Lord that he need not worry too much if his policy differs from ours in one or two respects—although he has been wise enough to do most of his building on the sure foundations bequeathed to him by the Labour Government. I would simply say on this point that the United Kingdom is, with the United States, the Soviet Union and France, one of the world's four primary producers and exporters of arms and military equipment. We supply arms not only to our allies in the major military alliances (which is a different proposition altogether) but to Ceylon, Brunei, India, Nepal, Thailand, Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Guyana, Kenya, Uganda and Zambia. If I have left any out, I am sure that the noble Lord will correct me when he comes to speak. I have not included in this list South Africa: that is another question and one which I shall not pursue in this
410
debate. But in plain words, we are one of the most prolific suppliers of arms to areas of maximum political instability and to countries which are spending on arms money and resources which might be more usefully employed in lifting people out of poverty and despair. I hope that no one will disgrace your Lordships' House by putting forward the drug pusher's argument that if we do not supply them somebody else will. I cannot believe that £345 million a year—large a sum as it is—is so crucial to the prosperity of this country that we need to take the lead in this kind of international competition.
There are many other points in the White Paper which, in a longer speech than I intend to make, would merit detailed consideration. I commend the establishment of a single command structure in the Royal Air Force, which seems to me to be a step very much in the right direction. On the other hand, I await with some interest the reaction of some of my saltier naval friends to the emergence of a plastic warship and also to the emergence of a new animal called a Principal Warfare Officer. So far as I can see, this is an appointment which has been familiar to the Army for some time as the Chief of Staff; but I cannot help feeling that the father of the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, might have had a few monosyllabic comments to make about the emergence of the Principal Warfare Officer.
I come finally to what I believe to be very real and very grave doubts about our defence policy. In the last analysis the aim of British Defence policy is presumably to protect this country against military attack. Few people, I think, would deny that this means maintaining effective defences in the European Atlantic area. I ought to make clear at the outset that I personally do not believe that there is at this very moment an actual military threat to the security of Western Europe and the United Kingdom, but, as I have said before in your Lordships' House, military planning must take account not only of the potential enemy's intentions, so far as we can define them, but of his capabilities as well—and this I believe we have failed to do. The relevant section in the White Paper comes under the heading of "Western Security" on pages 1, 2 and 3. The

411
noble Lord, the Defence Secretary, has made some reference to this, but the brief paragraph on the military strength of the Warsaw Pact and the even briefer references to NATO Force improvements both in the White Paper and in the noble Lord's speech do not, in my view, really tell the whole story. There is a passing reference in the White Paper to the
"imbalances in the forces confronting each other in Europe, which favour the Warsaw Pact".
The noble Lord repeated this in his speech, and I believe it conceals a very alarming situation and one which in certain circumstances might become even more serious.
It is, of course, never wise to rely wholly on figures, which can be used to prove anything; but it is a fact that in Northern and Central Europe, the crucial defence area of Western Europe and the Atlantic area, there are 66 divisions of the Warsaw Pact confronting 24 NATO divisions, or 26 if the two French divisions are included. That is a superiority in the Communist armed forces in Northern and Central Europe of approximately three to one. This enormous disparity does not take account of the fact that the Warsaw Pact divisions are smaller than NATO divisions and it does not take account of the fact, either, that many of Russia's allies might not, in the event, prove 100 per cent. reliable; but even in simple numbers of troops on the ground it is still possible to demonstrate that the Warsaw Pact has to-day a superiority of nearly two to one. They have nearly a million men in the Northern and Central Front in Europe, and NATO has between 500,000 and 600,000.
This, I am afraid, is not the only important calculation, and I should like briefly to outline to your Lordships what I think are the other important factors. First, the NATO forces in Europe, largely due to a hangover from the end of the War, are inefficiently deployed. The powerful American forces are in the Southern sector, which is easily defended and which is in any case the least likely to be attacked. The Northern sector, the most likely axis of any Soviet attack, if it came, is manned by the less efficient European divisions. Second, the superiority of the Warsaw Pact in tanks
412
is enormous, and armoured forces are still the key to land warfare. Against NATO's 5,500 battle tanks in Central and Northern Europe the Communist countries have 16,000, of which 10,000 are Russian: that is a three to one superiority in armour. I know that it could be said that NATO Forces have stronger anti-tank defences; but any expert in armoured warfare will tell you that the best answer to a tank is another tank, and a three to one inferiority in armour on the crucial fronts in Western Europe does not seem to me to be good enough. Third, the large resources mentioned by the noble Lord which the Soviet Union spends on military research and development ensures that the Warsaw Pact countries always have the most modern and effective weapon systems. This is not always the case in NATO, many of whose countries are in competition with each other over equipment production. There does not seem to be any way in which we can persuade the countries of NATO to standardise their equipment and to go in for co-ordinated programmes of production.
Fourth, the Soviet Union controls the Warsaw Pact as a single monolithic force. NATO cannot do this for obvious reasons, apart from the fact that one of its most important countries, France, has withdrawn from the integrated structure of NATO. It is not possible, nor would it be desirable, to try to control Parliamentary democracies in the way that the Soviet Union can control its political satellites. The fifth point I should like to make is that the Soviet Union has interior lines of communication. This would mean that in a war Russian reinforcements could reach Central and Northern Europe quicker than American troops could be brought across the Atlantic to reinforce NATO. Sixth, the Soviet's reserve organisation is much more efficient than that of the West. Finally, the Warsaw Pact has great superiority in tactical aircraft—nearly two to one in the Central and Northern Front—and, as the noble Lord has said, the Soviet Fleet is globally deployed and growing more and more modern and efficient every day.
Here it may be worthwhile making the point that we should not be deceived into thinking, as I believe some commentators and analysts are, that sea power in this

413
context is no longer important. I do not subscribe to the theory that we are never likely again to engage in set naval battles of the traditional kind. The Soviet Union has now grasped a fact that has been obvious to us for some time: naval power can be important and flexible as a political instrument. Perhaps I might commend the attention of your Lordships to a particularly interesting article on this subject in the Economist on January 8, the closing words of which are:
"There is something not quite serious about a Europe that talks of unity, but does not take the main responsibility for the sea and air around itself."
In this context I might, before passing on from this matter, ask the noble Lord whether when he comes to speak later he will elucidate for the House this question of the withdrawal from Malta. He has referred to it in his opening remarks. There is one point about which I am not quite clear; namely, does there come a point in this withdrawal which may be called a point of no return—in other words, when the withdrawal is not complete but so comprehensive that it would be unproductive, if not counter-productive, to put it into reverse and go back again? If there is such a point is he able to identify it for us in the context of the present programme of withdrawal?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before the noble Lord passes on from that subject—he has given some most disturbing facts; enough to make our flesh creep—what is his remedy? What does his Party propose to do?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I have now completed two-thirds of my speech; the last third is devoted to that very subject. As I was saying, I realise that a simple comparison of military strengths is not in itself definitive. There are factors of training, doctrine and logistical support to be taken into account—not to mention important political considerations. I have underlined this basic military imbalance to demonstrate the proposition that if the Soviet Union decided—I do not believe that it will—for whatever reason to do so, they could launch an overwhelming attack on the West with every prospect of success. What is the answer of the West to the Communists' obvious military superiority? At present, it is encapsulated
414
in one simple, rather chilling phrase in the White Paper:
"The maintenance of tactical and strategic nuclear forces in order to ensure that the deterrent remains effective at all levels."
It is true that the White Paper also refers to the need for a continued and systematic improvement of conventional forces. But nothing can alter the fact that at this moment the defensive strategy of Europe depends on the early use of nuclear weapons in the event of an attack.
At the risk of tiring your Lordships. I must spell out very clearly what the implications of this are. First of all, we should be clear about the persistent attempt perpetuated in the White Paper of trying to distinguish between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. In the first place, most battlefield or so-called "tactical" nuclear weapons are at least as powerful as the bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and a battle fought with these weapons would, within 48 hours, reduce the whole of Central Europe to a radioactive wasteland with no amenities, no communications and with millions of dead and dying. Who is to say that the battle will be confined to Central Europe? Can we be sure that our enemy will play this lunatic game according to our rules? If a so-called "tactical" nuclear missile were fired at a Warsaw Pact military headquarters in Magdeburg or Leipzig, the reply, if current Soviet strategic doctrine is any guide at all, might well be a megaton nuclear weapon on Paris, or London or New York.
As has been said many, many times before, a nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon, and the terms "tactical "and" strategic "used in this context have no meaning at all. Much of this apocalyptic thinking is academic anyway because there is in real terms only one man who can give the authority for the battlefield nuclear weapons to be fired—that is the President of the United States of America. I ask every noble Lord in this House to perform the perhaps not altogether easy mental exercise of putting himself for a moment in the place of the President of the United States of America and, having done so, to ask himself one simple question: if Russian troops were to invade Germany, or Norway or Italy without using nuclear

415
weapons, shall I, the President of the United States, give the order to fire the battlefield nuclear weapons of NATO in the almost certain knowledge that this will eventually mean the destruction of American cities and the death of millions of American citizens? That is the question that you have to ask yourselves, and I suggest very seriously that the American President, especially in the climate of present Soviet/American relations, is unlikely to give any such order. I believe any defensive strategy for Europe based on the assumption that he will has absolutely no validity at all.
I am afraid that that is not quite all. We are faced sooner or later with the real possibility that there will be a substantial withdrawal of American troops from Europe. It may not be declared American policy to do that at the moment, but those who study affairs inside the American Administration, and inside the American political establishment, will know that the pressures for withdrawal are growing, and if those pressures succeed and American troops are withdrawn from Europe this will at the same time gravely reduce the already inadequate conventional defences of Europe and further diminish the already erroded credibility of the American nuclear guarantee. It is time that we faced the realities of this situation. If what we want is military defence, then we cannot have it on the cheap. The White Paper, as the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Defence said, says that the Soviet Union spends 8 per cent. of its gross national product on defence. I regard this as a very conservative estimate, perhaps understandably so. A great deal of Soviet military research is concealed in their space programme. A more realistic figure of Soviet expenditure is between 10 and 12 per cent. Compare this with the expenditure in Western Europe, which the noble Lord has already done. Our own expenditure, as set out in the White Paper, is approximately 5½ per cent. of the gross national product. Yet, as he has said, of the European countries of NATO, only one spends more than that and that is Portugal, which in any case keeps half of its army in Africa. The average proportion of the gross national product spent by the European countries of NATO is 4·2 per cent. compared with a figure of 10 to 12
416
per cent. in the Soviet Union and somewhere between 8 and 9 per cent. in the United States of America. This is not a very good reflection on the European effort in its own defence, if, as I say, military defence is what we want.
Before any noble Lord leaps in with what may seem the obvious question, am I suggesting that we should spend more on defence, let me say that the answer to this depends on another question. Is military defence the only, or even the best, way of ensuring the security of Western Europe? I do not believe that it is, and it is in this context that I must deplore the almost total lack of attention in the Defence White Paper to any possibilities of arms control, disarmament, détente or accommodation with the countries of Eastern Europe. There is only one lasting security for Europe, and only one obvious road to it, and it lies through a policy of closer relations with the Soviet Union and the Communist countries of Eastern Europe: the policy of détente, embarked on so courageously by Willy Brandt, the Chancellor of West Germany. It is only by a relaxation of political tensions that we shall ever arrive at a situation in which this enormous and ruinously expensive military apparatus in Europe can be dismantled. And we must remember that every time the military superiority of the Warsaw Pact increases, it becomes more difficult to agree on a fair and reasonable system of balanced force reduction.
The Warsaw Pact countries have proposed a European Security Conference to discuss these matters, and it is with a sense of deep regret that I have to say that it is the British Government, of all the countries of Western Europe, which have shown themselves to be most suspicious, most tentative and most discouraging about this proposal. I suggest that we must not, whatever our feelings may be about the oppressive régimes of the Soviet Union and its allies (and for my part I loathe police States, whether they are police States of the Left or of the Right), fall into the trap of believing automatically that any proposal which comes from the Soviet Union is by definition devious, Machiavellian and insincere. It is at least arguable that the Soviet Union to-day is as interested as we are in establishing a stable and peaceful Europe and throwing off some of the crippling economic burden of an

417
enormous military establishment. The way to find out whether or not the Soviet Union is sincere is to go to the conference table; to stop creating artificial obstacles to a European Security Conference. Whatever the risks of taking part in such a conference, they are tiny in comparison with the risks we take if we do not, and tiny in comparison with the immense rewards we should enjoy if a European Security Conference turned out to be successful.
However, let us be clear. Unless we do that, unless we bring about an agreement on the reduction of forces in Europe, we are, as I have demonstrated—and this was my reason for demonstrating it—faced with a situation in which the military balance is against us, and likely to become more so day by day. And if the Government of this country, of whatever Party, together with the Governments of the rest of Western Europe, cannot achieve European security by peaceful means, they can meet that threat in only one of two ways: as they are doing now, relying on the nuclear heresy, which is in effect the policy of suicide or surrender; or by increasing their conventional military defence, and accepting the economic and social consequences of doing so. Also, of course, they must coordinate these efforts on a European basis at a European level. There is no other way. This is true, quite irrespective of any arguments about the Common Market, which for obvious reasons I shall not follow in this debate. Nor do I ignore other extraneous factors such as the growing power of China, the growing power of Japan, or the apparently new relationship which is growing up between the People's Republic of China and the United States of America. I do not ignore any of those factors; I simply say that for the moment our eyes should be concentrated on the security of Western Europe and the possibility of finding a peaceful way of ensuring it, and the implications if we do not.
My Lords, I apologise for speaking at such length and for concentrating so much on one particular aspect of defence policy. But I believe this to be a matter of the utmost gravity for this country and for the rest of Europe. I would sum it up simply like this. First, the military balance in Europe is alarmingly against us and is growing more so every day. Second, the only long-term remedy for
418
this is to attack the political problems of Europe and begin to dismantle the opposing military forces by agreement. Third, failing this, presumably the countries of Western Europe must continue to provide themselves with an effective military defence. Fourth, this cannot be provided by nuclear weapons; only conventional defence will do. And fifth, if Europe wants effective conventional forces as an alternative to peaceful settlement of the problem, then its Governments must be prepared to pay the cost, economic, social and political, of raising, equipping and maintaining these forces. It is with no intention of trying to make any Party political capital that I say that I see no evidence in the current White Paper either of a readiness to pursue active policies of détente, with a view to reducing military forces in Europe, or of a readiness to provide the adequate contribution which is required to provide an effective conventional defence for Western Europe. For my part, my Lords, I do not regard this as a reasonable return for £2,800 million a year.

ALDERSHOT GARRISON EXPLOSION
3.46 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, perhaps in response to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, your Lordships would wish me to repeat a Statement which has been made by the Home Secretary in another place. It reads as follows:
"I regret to have to inform the House that at 12.40 p.m. to-day an explosion occurred in the Headquarters officers' mess, 16th Parachute Brigade, at Aldershot.
"Seven people were killed: one officer, five female and one male civilian on the staff. At least 13 are injured: nine officers, one staff sergeant and three further civilians on the mess staff.
"The police are investigating with the utmost urgency and in the meantime I have no further details.
"I am sure the House will wish to convey its sympathy to the relatives of those killed and those who have been injured in this tragic incident."
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am sure I speak for your Lordships' House

419
when I thank the noble Lord the Defence Secretary for repeating this Statement. This is a terrible tragedy, and I should like to associate noble Lords on this side of the House with the sympathy which has been expressed to the relatives of those killed and to those who have been injured in this tragic accident. For obvious reasons, it would be irresponsible to comment any further at this moment, but I believe that everyone in this House will feel a deep sense of shock and dismay at the news which the noble Lord has given to the House.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I should like simply to associate myself and my colleagues on these Benches with what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said.

HEALTH SERVICE COMMISSIONER
3.48 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is making in another place about the appointment of a Health Service Commissioner. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government have decided that there should be a Health Service Commissioner as part of the arrangements for dealing with complaints in the National Health Service. Although the great majority of complaints are satisfactorily dealt with by health authorities, there are some that the citizen should be able to refer to an entirely independent person if he remains dissatisfied with the action taken by the Health Service authority. A Commissioner would serve this independent function and would reinforce the rights of those who use the Health Service, without detracting from the responsibilities of the Health Service authorities or reflecting on the value of the work done by the staff of the Service.
"There will be a Health Service Commissioner for England, one for Wales and one for Scotland, but initially at least, the three posts will
420
be held by the same person. This is an important expansion of the machinery for the independent investigation of complaints for which the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration represents a proven precedent. It would be premature for the Commissioner to be designated now. The Government think, however, that the work of the Health Service Commissioner and of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration should be closely associated, and they recognise that there are strong arguments for considering whether these posts should all be held by the same person. Before reaching a decision on this the views of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration will be sought. Appointment of the Commissioner will be by Her Majesty by Letters Patent. In this and in his tenure of office, he will follow the precedent set by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and will enjoy the same degree of independence in carrying out his functions. The Health Service authorities will continue to be responsible for investigating complaints made to them, as part of their general management responsibilities. The Commissioner will consider only those complaints made by or on behalf of patients which have already been made to the responsible authorities and not been resolved to the complainant's satisfaction. Complainants (or those acting for them) will in all cases deal directly with the Commissioner.
"The Commissioner will be responsible for investigating actions taken by or on behalf of the Health Service authorities where it is claimed that an individual person has suffered injustice or hardship through maladministration, or through a failure to provide necessary treatment and care. He will not, however, deal with complaints from staff about their pay and conditions of service, or with complaints concerning contracts or other commercial transactions. Nor will he investigate the actions of general medical and dental practitioners, pharmacists, ophthalmic medical practitioners and opticians, all of whom are not employees of the Health Service but are in contract with it. A statutory

421
procedure already exists for examining complaints against them, and this will continue, without the involvement of the Commissioner. In Scotland the Commissioner will not deal with complaints falling within the jurisdiction of the Mental Welfare Commission.
"Together with my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, I have had thorough and constructive discussions with representatives of the medical profession about complaints bearing on the relationship between clinicians and patients. We have decided that the Commissioner should be precluded from investigating any action taken in the course of diagnosis, treatment or clinical care of an individual patient which, in the Commissioner's opinion, was taken solely in the exercise of clinical judgment.
"In cases coming within his jurisdiction, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration does not look into complaints when the complainant has or had a right of appeal to a tribunal or a remedy by way of proceedings in a court of law, unless he is satisfied that in the particular circumstances of the case it is unreasonable to expect the complainant to resort or have resorted to it. The Health Service Commissioner will follow the same practice; I would expect that he would need to use his discretion to investigate this type of case only on rare occasions.
"The procedure under which the Commissioner will conduct investigations will be similar to that observed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. He will be required to send a report of the results of investigations to the complainant, to any person complained against and to the responsible health authorities. He will make an annual report (and may make special reports) to the Secretary of State, who will be required to lay them before both Houses of Parliament.
"Legislation will be required to enable the Health Service Commissioner to be appointed."
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, in view of the major issues involved in
422
dealing with complaints in the National Health Service I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has been good enough to repeat this lengthy and complex Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. Let me preface my remarks on the Statement by saying that all in this House would agree that the National Health Service is one of our greatest national assets, and that the vast majority of patients and their relatives feel nothing but gratitude for the service and the skill and the care they receive. At the same time, none of us can now doubt after the three reports on three hospitals in these last three years, Ely, Farleigh and Whittingham, that the case for an independent Health Commissioner has been clearly and most tragically demonstrated in full.
Moreover, the Statement we have just heard is of particular significance at this moment of time in view of the impending reorganisation of the Health Service, and the determination of the present Government to manage the newly integrated service through small and non-representative bodies accountable to no one except the Minister who appoints them. In this context the findings of the Payne Committee on the inquiry into the Whittingham Hospital, which was published only last week, revealed, I am afraid, only too clearly the stark and total failure of the Hospital Management Committee to investigate fully the very serious complaints made by nurses about ill-treatment and fraud at the hospital which were proved some two years later to be well-founded.
I therefore welcome in principle the Statement we have just heard, that the Government have decided to appoint a Health Commissioner. But my welcome is qualified by my very grave concern about that part of it which indicates that the independent Health Service Commissioner, the Government envisage, will act as a court of appeal only in those cases where complaints have already been made by or on behalf of patients and have not yet been fully resolved. While I fully agree that there is a clear need for fair, swift and effective machinery to deal with complaints at local level, the code of practice for which the Davies Committee is currently considering, I hope the House will agree that the most devastating feature common to the three terrible

423
reports we have had in these last three years was that the complaints of ill-treatment of patients were exposed initially in each case by junior nursing staff and a doctor in the case of the Whittingham Hospital, a doctor whom I saw myself as I was at the Department when he made his first direct complaint. All the staff concerned were initially censured, and in some cases actually victimised to the point of suspension or dismissal, as at Ely, for having the courage of their professional and personal convictions in pursuing these matters. I therefore believe now that it is essential for staff, for relatives or patients who wish to make a complaint or have a matter investigated to have direct access, both formal and informal, by letter or in person, to the Health Service Commissioner when he is appointed to avoid the fear of victimisation.
My Lords, I might not—let me be quite frank—have held this view two years or so ago. One would naturally wish to see complaints normally dealt with through the general management processes of the Health Service. But now I believe, on the evidence of these three Reports, that there should be direct access to an independent Commissioner. I very much hope that the Government will see the strength of the case and present the legislation in this form.
I would also ask the noble Lord if he can tell the House whether the remit of the proposed Health Commissioner will cover all the aspects of the integrated Health Care Services after 1974 or whether his writ will run only over the Hospital Service. I should also like the opportunity to consider at greater leisure that part of the document relating to clinical relationships between patients and their doctors which needs very careful study. I hope there will be a more suitable moment in the near future, when noble Lords have had a chance to consider this very difficult and important area of the Health Service relationships, to have a further and fuller discussion about it.
3.59 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating this Statement, and to say how very pleased I am that the Government have made up their mind to appoint a
424
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Health Service. This will give great satisfaction among a large number of the medical profession who have been not at all happy about the way in which complaints have been dealt with in the past or with the machinery for investigating certain complaints. I would support the noble Baroness in what she has said about the complaints coming in from the staff of the hospital. I think they should have direct access to the Commissioner, because from the reports we have had that was clearly where the breakdown of some sort occurred. I hope that when legislation is introduced this point will be considered. I am glad to see that no attempt is to be made to interfere in the treatment of patients on the clinical side, which I believe can be dealt with in quite a proper way at the present time, as the Statement said.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for their general welcome to this Statement. I know that for some time there has been pressure to appoint a Health Service Commissioner. I listened with interest to what they both had to say about direct access, although I must say that I cannot go quite as far as they wanted me to go.
I think the noble Baroness was some-what self-contradictory in paying at the beginning of her remarks a handsome and well-deserved tribute to the great majority of the staff and to the conditions in the National Health Service—which of course I would thoroughly echo—and then at the end of her remarks advocating a direct complaint to the new Health Service Commissioner before even the normal Health Service authorities had a chance to sort out the facts. The vast majority of complaints are satisfactorily dealt with by the normal machinery. At the moment we have the Davies Committee looking into an improvement in that machinery and it is only when the normal channels fail to satisfy a complainant (and the person complaining may be a patient, a member of the staff or a Member of Parliament, or any other individual) that we need a Health Service Commissioner.
In answer to the specific question raised by the noble Baroness, I can say that all aspects of the integrated Health Service

425
will be covered by the Health Service Commissioner after the Service is reorganised in 1974.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am not anxious to detain the House but I really must defend myself against the accusation of self-contradiction. The issue at stake is one of time. The original complaints by members of the nursing staff at the Winningham Hospital went back to 1967; the local Hospital Management Committee failed completely to undertake the necessary investigations, and it was not until a doctor wrote to the then Secretary of State in 1969 that the investigation was started. Nothing was done for the two years those conditions obtained, and this is why I have now come to the views I have just put forward.

DEFENCE ESTIMATES
4.3 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, we can surely all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that, on the whole, the White Paper is a reasonable and work-manlike document and that, generally speaking, the policy statement corresponds to our present role as what I believe is nowadays known as an important Power of the second rank. We have in fact now largely shed our imperial and world-wide commitments and, as everybody knows, we are concentrating primarily on the defence of Western Europe, within the general framework, of course, of the Atlantic Alliance. Before considering how this general posture might be reinforced and developed and what seems to me to be one major flaw in the whole exposé in Chapter I, I should like to put one or two questions of detail, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, did, to which I should be grateful if the Government could reply.
First, with regard to recruitment. Of course it is a good thing that the recruitment figures have gone up so well, and I congratulate the Government on it. The new flexible system described in Chapter IV, paragraph 14, also seems to us to be excellent, as such, if long overdue. But it is surely regrettable that the men who opt for this new type of engagement should be penalised by a lower rate of
426
pay. It is true, of course, that the penalisation is disguised by the provision that men on notice-engagements will receive what are called "normal" pay rates, while those on long service engagements are rewarded by higher rates. But is not this really only the equivalent of the well-known Treasury cheese-paring? Would it result in any great additional expenditure if both categories were on the higher rate? In any case, could the Minister perhaps tell us what the additional expenditure would be likely to be if there were no financial distinction between the two categories of recruits? No doubt the ability to give notice will give rise to some manpower problems and these will have to be accented in the modern context of fluidity of labour, from which not even the Service Departments can be immune. But if there were no invidious distinction in the rates of pay between the two categories of recruits might there not be rather less prospect of men on notice-engagements terminating their engagements than would otherwise be the case?
In Chapter II, paragraph 7(a), we are told that work on the design of a through-deck cruiser is proceeding satisfactorily. This is good news so far as it goes, but in paragraph 7(c) we learn that, unhappily, the Harrier VSTOL aircraft is now considered unsuitable for maritime operations. It is certainly to be hoped, as I think the White Paper points out, that a new version of the Harrier can be developed or indeed that a completely new aircraft can be designed and produced. But neither of these things appears to be certain and both would presumably take a long time to accomplish. Therefore is there not some risk that the through-deck cruiser will be produced before there are any suitable aircraft that can operate from it?
Lastly, we note from Chapter II, paragraph 7(e) that we have had to invest in the French Exocet surface-to-surface missile. Could the Minister let us know how much this contract will cost? Like-wise, the Mark 46 lightweight torpedoes which apparently we have had to purchase from the United States of America? Is it not a fact that these are not, so to speak, exotic weapons but just ordinary naval hardware? And does it not reflect unfavourably on our R. and D. programme that we have not been able to

427
produce them ourselves with all the benefit that would consequently accrue to British industry and exports, always supposing, which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, doubted, that these are desirable, to say nothing of some relief to our balance of payments?
I turn now to the general question of Western European defence, in respect of which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, made such an interesting speech. With a good deal of it I agreed, though not all. The White Paper rightly draws attention to the tremendous and, qualitatively, ever-increasing conventional power of the Soviet Government and its Allies now deployed in Europe, that probably out-classes the NATO power by at least 2½ and perhaps even 3 to 1, taking everything into consideration. At least I believe that is the view of the Institute of Strategic Studies. It also draws attention to what is called the potent Soviet naval capability in the Mediterranean; to its naval deployments that are believed to be a potential threat to Western European trade routes and, of course, not least, to its immense nuclear capacity which is now, broadly speaking, at least the equal of that of the United States.
I suggest that nobody can read paragraph 5 of Chapter I of the White Paper without at least some apprehension. Most people will probably read it with considerable alarm. There is no justification for the complacent, if widely held view, that preoccupation with China will diminish the great military predominance of Russia in Europe and her growing strength in the Mediterranean. There is every reason to think that Moscow believes that with its present force in the Far East and in Asia, to say nothing of its own tactical nuclear weapons, it can easily contain any Chinese threat, and that this situation is likely to endure for a number of years.
Our response to this great potential menace is described in paragraphs 6 to 9 of the White Paper. It must surely be so to reinforce our conventional forces in order that they may have at least some prospect of successfully resisting a conventional Russian attack—that is, a Russian attack using conventional means only. I hope I did not misunderstand
428
what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said in this respect, but it seemed to me that he came rather near to asserting that the conventional defence of Western Europe was now almost impossible and that the only hope, or practically the only hope, lay in our trying to arrive at some form of disarmament. I trust he did not mean any form of unilateral disarmament.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, since the noble Lord has referred to what I said, may I say that I was certainly not referring to unilateral disarmament but to the possibility of nuclear and balanced force reductions in Central Europe. On the question of the conventional defence of Europe, my point was that the present strategy, and tactical doctrine of the NATO forces relies upon the early use of nuclear weapons. It is not positioned on a conventional defence of Europe.
LORD GLADWYN: That comes very close to the point I was making. As I understand the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, he surely does think that the purely conventional defence of Western Europe is virtually impossible, and that if there is anything like a major incident we should have to revert to nuclear weapons.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I do not want to prolong the exchange too much. What I was saying was that with the present conventional forces in Europe the defence of Europe is ineffective, not that the conventional defence of Europe is impossible. It would be possible with more and better conventional forces.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I now agree with the noble Lord. We are at one, always assuming that what we have to aim at is the conventional defence of Western Europe, irrespective of the element of nuclear power. So far as they go the proposals in the White Paper are therefore good. The work of the so-called "Eurogroup" and the expanded collective and individual programmes of the European NATO countries are to be highly commended, as is the intention of the United States to improve the capacity of their own forces which, at any rate if Mr. Nixon wins the Election, are also quite unlikely to be withdrawn, even though such a decision would perhaps rest less with Mr. Nixon than with Congress

429
But surely it is the presence of United States troops in Europe that is still the most important thing. If they are involved in fighting, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, the Russians can hardly take it for granted that the President of the United States will not press the button after all.
However, to be frank, there is one evident flaw in all these, so to speak, conventional activities; it is the rather ambiguous position of France. In paragraph 9, entitled "European Defence Co-operation", France is not mentioned at all. She is referred to only indirectly in the statement that:
"Within the Atlantic Alliance the European countries should seek to co-operate more closely on defence and to establish a greater identity of view."
That is an impeccable statement. Perhaps France is also referred to in the references to bilateral staff talks, collaborative projects for arms procurement, and the desirability of extending existing forms of co-operation both in scope and in depth. It may be, therefore, that France is cooperating in the general defence effort of the West more than is commonly thought. But on the face of it, though she says she is still a party to the North Atlantic Treaty and therefore under a formal obligation to regard an armed attack on any member of the Alliance as an attack on herself, she is not at present, apparently, prepared to integrate any of her forces even in a European context, thus necessarily, I am afraid, casting some doubt on her ability, even if not on her intention, to combine with her Allies in any military effort to resist such an attack.
It is in such circumstances that we hear that the French Government would like to equip its two divisions in Baden with the new French tactical weapon called "Pluton" that may become operative during the next couple of years, in which case they could not, as is the case with tactical nuclear missiles in the hands of other members of the Alliance in Europe, come under the general authority of SACEUR. Whether the German Government could agree that French troops could in such circumstances remain on German soil is open to considerable doubt. And now we read that, apparently irrespective of this difficulty, no less a person than the President of the National Defence Commission of the French Parliament
430
has declared that the two divisions should be withdrawn from Germany straight away. Only so, says M. Sanguinetti, can France assert her total independence of NATO—the reference is the Le Monde newspaper for February 17, last.
My Lords, this is serious, for any withdrawal of French troops from Germany, for whatever reason, would be taken, rightly or wrongly, as implying that, in practice, France was no longer an effective member of the North Atlantic Alliance, or was, to say the least, asserting her right to contract out, should she so desire, in the event of real trouble with the Soviet Union. A considerable hole would thus be blown in the conventional defence of the West, and the only apparent beneficiary would be Russia. Apart from anything else—and I am told by those who know—the whole conventional defence of Western Europe is hardly possible in any case unless certain communications are allowed to pass through France. I can hardly believe that things will come to such a pass as this, but at least we ought to know what the real intentions of the French Government are; and we must hope that this will be item No. 1 in the deferred talks between Mr. Heath and President Pompidou. Anyhow, it is no good thinking that we can make a great success of the extended European Economic Community until this major question is out of the way, or at least seriously tackled.
One way out, which I have not the time to dwell on now but which I developed fully in my report on the future of Western European Union which was unanimously approved by the Assembly of that body last December—that is to say also approved by the French delegation—would be to extend the so-called "Davignon" procedure for political consultation among the Six (to which group we have, I am glad to say, now been formally admitted) so as to include defence and thus gradually build up, with France and, it is to be hoped, with the other candidates for admission to the Six, a Western European element which would function as such within the Alliance, the North Atlantic Council being the body in which preconcerted views should be harmonised with those of the United States. If we go along

431
this path we may arrive, after a time, at a point at which there could be a Western European Chiefs of Staff organisation, and even, if the Americans should agree—why not?—a European SACEUR. It would be in such a body, too, that the future of the nuclear deterrents of the French and the British would be determined, though that, admittedly, will probably take a considerable time.
One hopeful sign is that the French and the Germans have now agreed that there should at least be a secretariat to prepare the agenda for the Ministers. There seems to be no reason why, in time, such a secretariat should not incorporate the present small secretariat of the Western European Union. What, of course, will soon be necessary, if we proceed on this line at all, is a Secretary-General who, as in NATO, will sit in at Ministerial meetings and even, perhaps, one day preside over them. Always supposing that the Six would agree that such a Secretary-General might be British and that the secretariat would in any case be quite separate from the Quai d'Orsay, I should myself see considerable advantage in situating the new body in Paris.
It must, therefore, be hoped that, first of all in his talks with M. Pompidou, and thereafter at the proposed Western European "Summit" meeting, the Prime Minister will put forward and make his own proposals at least tending in this general direction. He might not be able to induce our French friends to accept all of them—perhaps there might be rather more chance of reaching agreement in a year or so from now—but in any event the effect on the remainder of the Six would surely be good as an indication of the firm intention of Britain, so far as lies in her power, to make the enlarged Community work in all spheres and not only in the context of Brussels and the Treaty of Rome.
I do not expect the Government to comment tonight on all these possibilities. The position as regards the French is no doubt too delicate at the moment for them to give any public indication of the way their minds are working. But I do trust that they realise that if the old Gaullist formula of "free hands"—that is to say, complete national liberty of action and no effective distinction
432
to be made between the super-Powers—by any chance prevails, we can say goodbye to all the long-term political hopes that we are at present placing in the Common Market. If this is what a "European Europe" means then it is something to which we cannot possibly subscribe. And, as a lifelong friend of France, I am more than ever convinced that her whole future, and indeed our own, depends on the possibility of our together building up in Western Europe, and within the Atlantic Alliance, some valid political entity that alone will enable the voice of Europe to be heard.
The possibility of our doing so is indeed, as I think, the one substantial long-term barrier to the eventual political extension Westwards of the Soviet Power. The Russians undoubtedly recognise this, and it accounts for their consistent and undisguised hostility to the enlargement of the European Economic Community, to say nothing, I am afraid, of their evident intention to use any European Security Conference for the chief purpose of playing off the European allies one against the other and, if possible, separating them from the United States. Of course we must use such a security conference, if it comes about, for our own purposes which, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, include some sensible arrangement on balanced reduction of forces. We must not abandon that but must do our best to use the conference for that purpose. We cannot assume that we shall be successful, but if we lower our guard we have "had it" both ways; we shall not be able to get any advance in disarmament, and we shall also be at the mercy of our greatest adversary.
Naturally, if our own internal dissensions should by any chance prevent the Government from giving effect to their signature of the Treaty of Accession to the European Economic Community, the Russians will have achieved their ends straight away. For the ball will then be at their feet. It is perhaps strange that such considerations did not apparently occur to many undoubtedly sincere and patriotic persons who recently registered their vote against the passing of the legislation necessary to enable us to become members of the European Community.
My Lords, as I see it, such are in any case the unpleasant realities behind the calm phraseology of the White Paper and

433
it is towards them, as I believe, that we should from now on increasingly bend our minds.
House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
4.25 p.m.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, may I associate myself with the sympathy which has been expressed about the Parachute Regiment disaster. I see one or two other noble Lords in this House who are members of that regiment and they, like myself, will be specially saddened.
To return to the subject of our debate, I did not find this White Paper at all dull. It was rather a relief not to have to see the objectives all spelled out again rather differently each time. My reasons for saying that are three. First, the improved atmosphere. Naturally I keep in touch with the Army more than with the other Services, but it is quite clear to me that the men's feeling that they belong to Services which are actually going up, instead of just not going down and suffering incessant reviews, is a very important factor in their morale. The improvement in recruiting is also, I believe, due to this new atmosphere. Although the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, listed pay as one of the items—and there are quite a number of them—responsible, I believe that the most important is stability. Anybody who has commanded a good unit, or a good formation, knows perfectly well that to this is due the improvement in morale; and this again makes recruits want to join.
Active service, of course, is a great attraction, and always has been—even, as we have heard this afternoon, in Northern Ireland, although I cannot see why people should be enthusiastic to go back there even four times, which is what they are doing now. The new 18 months' notice engagement seems to be an excellent idea, and the White Paper faces the difficulties in front of us. Lastly, there are the improved weapons. The Navy must have good ships, and we have seen them referred to in this Paper. The R.A.F. must have the most modern aircraft. In my opinion it was a tragedy that TSR.2 was scrapped, because buying overseas means, I am afraid, that we do not necessarily get the best. In any case, supplies might be cut off in an emergency.
434
I think the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on the Paper, and I hope he will forgive me if I make a couple of comments. I also have two questions and a suggestion. The first comment is about these objectives. They were spelled out in the original October, 1970, Supplementary Statement, and although we are achieving Nos. 2 and 3 I am not convinced that we are achieving No. 1, which was, within our resources, to resume:
"a proper share of responsibility for the preservation of peace and stability in the world."
Let me give my reasons for saying this. In South-East Asia, for example, although there is the present Five-Power Agreement, and the stationing of the Brigade Group in Singapore is much better than complete withdrawal, I am not convinced that this will necessarily be up to the job. I know that under the Agreement we are bound only to consult, and not to assist; but the fact remains that, while the threat at the moment is zero, there are two unpleasant possibilities looming up.
The first is that the Vietnam war could go wrong. The Communists could win and could take over Saigon. In that event, it would not be long before Bangkok fell, so that Singapore and Malaysia would be very much on their own. The other possibility is that the Indonesians could start the war all over again—after all, they are a country of 100 million people—although they are closely related to the Malays. In my opinion, we are very lucky that the confrontation, which took 50,000 British sailors, soldiers and airmen, did not coincide as to time with the trouble in Northern Ireland, which I believe has taken 20,000. The result of this state of affairs is that without further depleting B.A.O.R., which has already given up to Northern Ireland the equivalent of five units of infantry, and without cutting it practically in half we could not honour our agreements in that part of the world.
I must also refer to the Gulf because, although I realise that it is probably very difficult to go back on a firm statement that the British are going to withdraw, and although Sir William Luce has done marvels in forming the Trucial States into the United Arab Emirates, the fact remains that Arabs do not necessarily

435
agree with each other for very long. They are accustomed to having a dominant Power over them, or present with them, and our experience in withdrawing from Egypt and the Canal in 1956 is not a good augury. Since that time, there have been Arab/Israel wars and constant disagreement, partly due to the fact that we withdrew. So I am not convinced that there will not necessarily be trouble in the Gulf. I very much hope that regular visits from naval units and R.A.F. aircraft, to which reference is made in the White Paper, will suffice.
My conclusion is that we simply do not have enough infantry. I have said this before, and it must be a little tiring for your Lordships to have to listen to it again to-day. But the fact remains that in every emergency we have to have infantry battalions, and I do not think 53 battalions—which is the figure I have worked out, although I may be wrong by a battalion or two—is enough. As soon as the recruiting situation allows, I recommend strongly that we raise another six or seven battalions and make the number up to 60. I still believe that a presence is better than a promise. The Government have carried out this policy in South-East Asia, but they have not done so in the Gulf.
My other comment is about Malta, and in view of what the noble Lord the Secretary of State has said about the delicacy of the negotiations, I shall make only one non-controversial remark. We must not forget that Malta is turning over from a Government-based economy. There are 70,000 out of 100,000 employable men who until recently have been employed by the Government or by the Defence forces and who are turning over to a trade economy. In future they will rely on pure trade, tourism, light factories and the like. We know what it is to do that, and they are finding it very difficult indeed. From the strategic point of view, Malta is a complete washout from the moment a war is declared, and we all know that. It is not big enough to defend. Even in war time it was hardly big enough and was a liability; but now it is quite hopeless. But if, by any chance, we allow the Communists to take over Malta in peace time, they will use it as a base for peaceful penetration. So that if we can
436
possibly do it, we ought to retain the earned friendship of the Maltese people.
My two questions are very simple ones. We have handed over the Trucial Oman Scouts as a very good nucleus of the Army for the United Arab Emirates. I know that Abu Dhabi has a small army as I have seen it. But I am not quite clear (and this does not appear to be mentioned in the White Paper) whether the United Arab Emirates have an air component to go with those forces. I think they will need it. If they have a small air component, may I ask whether Britain has contributed to it? The force alongside in Oman has a quite respectable air component. My second question is about the T.A.V.R., which has been restored to its proper role. According to the last White Paper, it was to be increased by a force of 10,000 infantry, and the present White Paper indicates that 20 infantry units have been activated for that purpose. Is this an infantry formation or a balanced formation, under an H.Q.? If so, what is it called? Finally, may I suggest this? The T.A.V.R. is a very poor title, and I have always thought so. It had to be explained two or three years ago when the reorganisation was taking place. But it is an unappealing title, and I know from experience in the Territorial Army that the men and the officers are really quite proud of the letters "T.A." on their shoulders. I only hope that the old title will be revived, like the other one. I am sure that the men will be proud of it.
4.37 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bourne, because I agreed with so much of what he said. It is very satisfactory to have a White Paper which shows stability and exactly the sort of results which, in many ways, we in this House desire. I was delighted to see that the Far East Five-Power Agreement has been made absolute, although I would agree with the last speaker that perhaps it ought to be a little stronger. But it is pleasing to see from Annex D that this will cost us £9 million, instead of the £300 million which was being bandied around two years ago, not only in another place but all over the country, by the then Defence Secretary. These figures are rather different, as we

437
expected at the time. I am equally pleased to see that recruiting has so markedly increased, because I remember the country being stumped when it was said by the then Defence Secretary that what we desired to do would inevitably mean conscription for the whole nation. It has not meant conscription for the whole nation, and because of the stability and the challenge, which our forces have to meet in every part, we have been able to recruit the people we so badly need. Therefore, I congratulate my noble friend on all these scores.
I thought the arguments put from the Opposition Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, were in every way devastating. I have never heard them better put from a Labour Front Bench speaker in the 22 years that I have taken part in Defence debates in another place and here. He advocated—and I understand for political reasons—a two-fisted approach to the problem: detente and a strengthening of NATO and our conventional forces therein. I think the second is in many ways quite as important as the first. I would remind noble Lords that what we now call "détente" came to be called "appeasement" in the 1930s. If détente does not work, one must rely on the forces and equipment at one's disposal and on those of one's allies. I think the Government's White Paper, quite correctly—and this has been the theme of this debate—stresses the alarming growth in strength of the U.S.S.R. and the Warsaw Pact countries. I take much of my information from the Institute of Strategic Studies magazine, The Military Balance 1971–72. I am sure your Lordships will agree that the annexes to that publication repay exhaustive study. They show that France, Western Germany and ourselves are all spending about the same percentage of our gross national product. In actual money, West Germany is spending rather more and France is spending a little bit more, but we are about the same. It is interesting, too, that the U.S.S.R. is spending ten times as much as any of those three nations.
When you look at the number of men in uniform—and here I concede that the picture is somewhat distorted because of conscription, which is prevalent in every NATO country except this—you see that I West Germany has 466,000 men, France 506,000 men and the United Kingdom in
438
these Estimates has 373,000. What is perhaps more significant is that those Continental countries are increasing the strength of their uniformed manpower year by year, whereas we in this country are decreasing the strength of our uniformed manpower. It is a little alarming to think that, whereas since 1967 we have shed 44,000 from our military strength in all three Services, the other nations have found it necessary to increase theirs. I see from Annex A, too, that we are going to decrease our military strength by another 10,000 during the current year, so I would add my voice to the voices from the Labour Benches, from the Liberal Benches and from the Cross-Benches in saying that surely the time has come to see whether we cannot get back to spending rather more of our gross national product on the defence of our country and on the security of our alliances.
I was amused by my noble friend
when, with his usual humour, he talked about the accounts. He said there was a complicated and technical matter of accounting procedure which, if your
Lordships did not press him, he would not attempt to explain. Your Lordships did not press him, and I am glad, because it is certainly beyond me to understand these accounts. I went to the other place and collected from the Vote Office all the Supplementary Estimates, and it is extremely difficult to find your way through these Estimates and discover what is likely to be the out-turn in the year we are just finishing and what is likely to be the expenditure in the year which we are about to start. We have seen that last year we were spending (and this comes in Annex B, on page 53, if your Lordships wish to follow it) £2,536 million; and then it is said that, for inflationary reasons, £256 million, about 10 per cent., should be added to this sum. I understand from perusing all the papers I could get hold of that we have had Supplementary Estimates of £227 million, part of which, of course, have themselves suffered from greater or less inflation, according to the date in the year when they came into effect. I do not know whether these figures confuse our enemies, but they certainly confuse me, and I hope that perhaps my noble friend will try to make them a little clearer in his future White Papers.

439
Now I wonder whether this run-down in our manpower, for reasons which I will talk about later, and this static defence expenditure—because it is not increasing in real terms—makes sense when our defence industry is continuing to lay off men in every part of the country and much of it in development areas. Does this make sense when unemployment is so incredibly high, and disastrously so; and when the threat to our survival and our alliances is increasing all the time? This, to me, does not make any sense at all, and in this I was glad to have the support of the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench. Our shipyards are desperately short of orders. Could we not order yet more standard ships? I realise that to get early production they must be ships which are already designed, but I cannot help feeling that we have some very good designs which are ready and which could make a very useful contribution to employment—and thereby, also, of course, to our defence.
In the aero-space industry we are equally short of orders. I appreciate the Nimrod order and the Buccaneer order, but could we not order some more Harriers now, and other aircraft which would be very useful? Surely it is better to employ men on useful defence work than to go on paying them social service benefits for doing nothing. I recognise that early production is the key to this question. I was delighted to see how much we are now going to spend on the environment. In another place it was announced that for purer water in our rivers and for improved sewerage—both very important—we are now going to spend another £1,300 million in the next five years. These are staggering figures. I was pleased to see that we have raised building expenditure on the primary schools from £50 million in the Labour Government's time to £190 million a year. I was equally pleased to see that on further education building we are going to spend an extra £140 million in the year 1973–74. So in all these areas one sees increased expenditure. But one does not see it in defence, at a time when I believe we should now see our defence expenditure turning up.
Anther significant fact, as I think my noble friend said in his opening speech, is that if you compare the Free World's
440
expenditure with the Communist countries' expenditure on defence you come across a very important difference—and, incidentally, this was brought out in the North Atlantic Assembly in 1971. In NATO countries, an average of 60 per cent. of all defence expenditure goes on pay, housing and welfare of the personnel. In the United Kingdom, 50 per cent. goes on the pay of our personnel and another 16 per cent. on their housing and their welfare. So here we are with a defence budget, 66 per cent. of which is spent on the personnel and their wellbeing, and only 33 per cent. of which is left for all the hardware, for all the R. and D., for all the equipment, for all the spares and for all three Services—this of course is the dilemma in which every democracy is caught.
The Warsaw Pact position is so noticeably different. If one looks at their figures—and, for reasons one can understand, in a Communist country, with centralised control, you can make people do anything you want them to do; and anyone who has seen a Soviet warship will know that we could never ask our sailors or the sailors of any NATO country to serve in the conditions which exist in those warships—one sees that they spend only 25 per cent. of their enormous defence budget on their personnel, and the other 75 per cent. is left for the hardware. This is why it is alarming—and I underline what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said in his speech—to see the parades of these massive missiles and this modern equipment which the Warsaw Pact countries can now deploy through Moscow in their annual celebrations. We should not forget that the U.S.S.R. has now 3·3 million men under arms and is therefore able to defend both their Western front, with the Warsaw Pact, and their Eastern front against China.
It is with all these facts in mind—and they are set out in the White Paper and have been underlined in speeches to-day from every Bench—that I say that surely the time must have come, not to pride ourselves that our defence expenditure is only 5½ per cent. of our G.N.P. but to raise it, perhaps to 6½ per cent. When the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, was Minister of Defence, and during 13 years of Conservative rule, we had no difficulty as a result of spending 6½ per cent. of our G.N.P., and I may

441
say that under Lord Attlee's Administration, when the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was Minister of Defence, the figure got as high as 10 per cent., and even that did not wreck our country. So it is possible to spend more, and I think that, in a period when we have unemployment and slack in our economy, and when the threat is so great, this is exactly the time.
Now I want to turn to one or two points concerning our equipment. I believe that my noble friend is trying gallantly to buy British equipment, and I am sure that this is right. In our air-to-air missiles we had some first-rate equipment. First, there was Fire Streak, which was succeeded by Red Top; and Red Top was to be succeeded by Tail Dog. These were pre-eminent in their generation. I read now in the Daily Express—and anyone who has served in the Defence Ministry always reads Mr. Chapman Pincher with assiduity, because he seems to get his facts extremely accurate—that we are about to sign a contract to buy, not a British air-to-air missible but Sparrow from the United States. I may say that this missile is not yet ready. The shiny brochures which our competitors produce are very impressive and seem even to impress serving men and people in the Ministry of Defence. Their prices escalate; their delivery time goes out; and their results are no better than ours. So I would ask my noble friend to look again to see whether we must abandon a whole generation of air-to-air missiles and whether we may not press on with our own short range air-to-air missile known
as SHRAAM 75.
I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, in his speech: the expenditure on Exocet, a surface-to-surface missile. I read from my Daily Express that it is reported as likely to cost us £70 million. It may be that this had to be ordered from France because when the programme to continue the carriers was cancelled and announced, on January 16, 1968, by the then Prime Minister we were promised a missile. We were then promised that there would be a missile with surface-to-surface capability to take the place of organic air. But that missile was never ordered; discussions took place, but no orders were placed. It may have been necessary to
442
buy some Exocet, but do not let us forget there is at stake a considerable sum of money. In addition, it will take an enormous refitting programme and even then we are buying a missile with a range of only just over 20 miles, a weight of a quarter of a ton and a cost which is very considerable indeed. I still believe that it will be a long time—although it is coming into service in this year according to the White Paper—before ships can be spared and before a dockyard fitting programme can be arranged. Even then this is such a large missile (it is 18 ft. long) that there will not be room for it on many of our smaller ships, like frigates; only the bigger ships can carry it. Therefore this is no replacement at all for our aircraft carriers.
I implore my noble friend to think again about the scrapping of "Eagle". In 1964 we spent £31 million on the refit and modernisation of "Eagle". Here is a sister ship of "Ark Royal", probably the only carrier from the Western European countries which can operate in the very heavy North Atlantic weather. It is fitted with 3D radar, an automatic control room, steam catapults, fully-angled decks—it can do everything. But it is not "Phantomised"; I concede that. I ask my noble friend to find a way of spending money, if not to have it in fully-maintained reserve, to have it in unmaintained reserve. I reflect that in his day and in mine at the Admiralty, "Triumph" lay off Portsmouth for a decade and they still were able to take her hull and turn her into a heavy store ship now on operational strength. She was lying for ten years unmaintained. If we cannot afford to keep "Eagle" in unmaintained reserve, have we asked our U.S. friends—for it is a valuable contribution to the Alliance, particularly for policing of the Northern areas of NATO—whether they will look after her. I believe that we might get a favourable answer.
I am told that there is no room in our dockyards. Surely there is room to keep her offshore in some of our shipbuilding areas like the Clyde; and there should be no difficulty in finding men to do some maintenance to keep her in reasonable condition. It is said that we can rely on "Ark Royal"—but accidents happen at sea and even in dockyards. Sabotage, I

443
regret to say, also happens in dockyards and refits are necessary from time to time. Surely it does not make sense with what is meant to be a balanced Navy to keep one aircraft carrier alone in operation. It was the noble Earl, Lord Mountbatten, who said that you must either have one and a half aircraft carriers or none at all. I am making the plea that we should have the extra half.
It could be argued that there are no aircraft for this carrier. But let us remember that the French are maintaining two aircraft carriers, "Clemenceau" and "Foch", in operational service. I checked this with the French Embassy. They carry 30 aircraft each. If we do not have the aircraft, perhaps we could buy the French naval "Jaguar". This is going into operational service on their aircraft carriers in 1974. Please do not let this carrier, reasonably modern and very substantial, go to the scrapyard. Let us try to find some way of keeping her in reserve. I am told that the Lords of the Admiralty do not want her. The Lords of the Admiralty—God bless them!—are very wise; but no one is always right. The professionals in any area are not always right. We may remember this whenever we fly in a VC 10, for B.O.A.C. said that that aircraft was no good at all; that we should buy American aircraft. But B.O.A.C. was wrong and the Government of the day in that case were right.
I make one further plea. We are told—the noble Lord said this in his remarks—that there is little further work to be done on the Harriers. I think Lord Gladwyn queried this. This is a great pity. Here is an aircraft to which we have devoted a great deal of attention and a great deal of money and it really is in the forefront of world thinking. The U.S. Marines want to buy it; and they are buying ours, built here. The U.S. Navy wants to buy it and are negotiating for a Super-Harrier. We are told that we cannot afford to develop the 24,500 lbs. thrust engine for the Super-Harrier and now are told that this may be developed with the co-operation of Rolls-Royce by Pratt and Whitney in the U.S.A. to equip the 100-plus aircraft that they want. It is shameful to think that here is another idea started in this country, vertical take-off, which other nations
444
acclaim. If we do not carry on with this, in a few years' time when through-deck carriers come into being—though that will not be for at least seven years—we shall be buying back with valuable dollars Harriers made in the U.S.A. Do not let this opportunity go.
I turn now to West Germany. We find from the White Paper that the cost of our Forces in West Germany has escalated enormously. In the 1970–71 White Paper it was given as £113 million; in the 1971–72 White Paper, last year, it was given as £137 million. We are told in this year's White Paper that that £137 million has escalated to £169 million. The figure in this year's White Paper is £178 million. There has thus been an increase of 50 per cent. in the cost of our Forces in Germany in a period of 2½ years. Perhaps my noble friend in winding up can say how this has come about. Perhaps he can also tell us something about the offset agreement. This used to figure largely in discussions and in White Papers; but now we are told little about it. The new offset agreement was announced in March, 1971, in another place under which the Federal Government would pay us £62½ million over five years. This is at a rate of £12½ million a year, which is a minute contribution compared with the £178 million which represents the cost of our Forces there. Of course, we have strengthened our Forces and I am delighted at that announcement; but that cannot account for that enormous increase. We were told too that the West Germans were going to buy a considerable amount of equipment and services from us to offset this. May we have some details of this?
Lastly, I turn to the question of personnel. I congratulate my noble friend on the much better recruiting figures. I think the alarming state of affairs—and he touched on this—is that 20 per cent. of our recruits come from the 15-year-olds and 23 per cent. from the 17-year-olds. May I urge that those young men who want to join the Services be allowed to opt for their last year's schooling to be taken in the Services as part of their service? They are the type of young men who already are restless at school and may cause trouble. If they were in the Services they would probably meet the challenge of Service

445
life. We could teach them just as well in the Services, and there they would learn just as much as they would if they stayed on at school after we raise the school-leaving age. I feel that the Services should find something for the youngsters who do not take apprenticeships. If they are taking an apprenticeship, well and good. But so many youngsters go into part-time or dead-end jobs between the ages of 15 and 18. For them a short Service career would he admirable. It might also reduce the number of hooligans and other wrongdoers that we have in our midst.
For this engagement I should like to see one year of schooling and then Service training; two years with the Colours, which would take them to 18, and then perhaps a commitment to serve in the Reserve, with annual summer training, during a period of, say, five years. Then, when they were 23, I would give them a generous bounty, at the time when they were leaving the Services probably with some continuing commitment to the Reserve. When they came to a marrying age they would then have a substantial sum of money, free of tax, which they could put down as a deposit on a house. I feel that in this way we could make better use of part of our manpower, and also build up our reserves. Had I the time, my Lords, I should like to discuss extending this sort of voluntary service over a much wider field, such as the cleaning up of our environment and young people as visitors to the sick. There are a whole host of things which I should like to see organised. In place of National Service I should like to see a form of civil service in our community. I believe that this would form a challenge for many young people and channel off their energy which so often goes awry in these days.
To summarise, these are the points that I am trying to put before your Lordships. I see a growing threat to, and particularly a growing imbalance in, NATO. I think the time has come to spend rather more of the gross national product on the internal and external defence of our country, and on the security of our alliances. In the 1930s "defence" was a dirty word. Do not let us make it a dirty word in the 1970s, or we shall be in just the same disastrous position as we were in 1939.
446
Secondly, I urge my noble friend to buy British missiles when he can and to remember that we can make our own aircraft. The Harrier is a good example. I ask him to recall that Sweden, a small country, continues to build its own aircraft. The Viggen is one of the best anywhere in Western Europe. So the idea that because we are a country of only 55 million people we cannot afford to build our own aircraft is just not true, when we look at what other countries are doing. When we do buy abroad, as we did with exocet, let us make sure that there is tough horse trading—"We will buy this from you if you buy that from us." This is a far better and, I believe, a far more effective policy than even international co-operation which is essential only on very large and expensive projects.
My third point to the Government is: please look at the desirability of keeping "Eagle" in some sort of reserve until we see our way through the period till the through-deck cruisers are available with the aircraft to equip them. I believe that that period may well be five years; it could be seven, or even longer still. Lastly, could my noble friend think out a programme to attract the young men and make sure that we get the 15-yearolds, who are such an important part of the recruiting pattern as revealed in this White Paper.
5.4 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, the Secretary for Defence, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, may rest on his laurels. Criticism of the White Paper has been of an unusually mild character. There was not even a murmur about the remarkable achievement of spending more this year on Defence than ever we have done, except in time of war. Indeed the most severe criticism contained in the White Paper, or at any rate in one aspect of the White Paper came from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, himself. If noble Lords will turn to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the White Paper they will detect an implied rebuke of the defence organisation associated with NATO. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, uses a term in paragraph 9 which is even more than a rebuke. Referring to the Western Alliance contribution he says:
"Within the Western Alliance the European countries should seek to co-operate more

447
closely on defence and to establish a greater identity of view."
I should have thought the noble Lord might have said that they are establishing an identity of view, but what he has implied in paragraph 9 has been well known to many of us for a long time. It was exemplified in the speech of my noble friend Lord Chalfont. It has been referred to repeatedly in defence debates; namely, the weakness of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
May I indulge in a personal note? In this respect I have referred to it myself over and over again and even asked questions about it. On one occasion in your Lordships' House, when I ventured to ask a Question about the defence organisation associated with NATO, the reply was that this was not a matter for the United Kingdom Government but for other countries associated with NATO. This I cannot understand. It is impossible to comprehend the sense of it. After all, my Lords, what is our purpose in creating a defence organisation? It is to promote our security. What we must realise, what in fact we do realise though we are sometimes inclined to bypass the concept, is that without the co-operation of allies in Europe and of the United States, all our defence organisation utilised for the purpose of maintaining law and order as in the case of Ulster, perhaps in Cyprus and probably elsewhere, is itself no substantial contribution to defence in so far as it promotes security. That ought to be established.
What are we to do about it? The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, had a solution, or at any rate what might appear to be an approach to a solution. He did not object to expenditure on defence; he asked for more to maintain the aircraft carriers. He said that we should engage in more naval shipbuilding. The Clyde could do with more employment, and the Mersey also, but we should not produce naval vessels just for the purpose of promoting employment. There might be a case for constructing more naval vessels. I do not dispute the contention that at sea, compared with the vast array of vessels at the disposal of the Soviet Union, we are in a very weak position. But if we are to construct naval vessels let it be in the context of defence and
448
not merely for the purpose of providing employment.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, I did try to put the threat first and then I said that an added reason was the unemployment.
LORD SHINWELL: I am grateful to the noble Lord, because that is exactly the point to which I wish to address myself. I beg of your Lordships to be realistic about this matter of defence. Whatever is done, let us not indulge in self-deception. Why do I say that? I have the greatest respect for the integrity and honest convictions of those who seek to promote disarmament. Of course we all want disarmament: a reduction of forces to begin with, and conferences on the subject of security. But we have had 50 years and more of disarmament conferences. We have had security conferences under the auspices of the United Nations, and previously under the auspices of the old League of Nations. We have conferences on disarmament at Geneva still in process. But we have reached no solution. I repeat, let us not indulge in self-deception. It is something to which well-meaning people—and I can understand their purpose and motivation—turn to when they are on the horns of a dilemma—"Let us have another security conference". When my noble friend Lord Chalfont speaks about this, I understand the sentiment behind it. But if we have a conference on the subject of a reduction of forces, at the end, even if we succeed in reaching a satisfactory conclusion, what would it mean? It would mean that we should find ourselves proportionately in the same position after that conclusion had been reached as we are now: in other words, the Soviet Union would still be powerful and we should still be weak. That is the situation. Let us have our conferences; let people talk if they will; let them have faith and hope. But at the same time, let Members of your Lordships' House face the facts of life; namely, that the Soviet Union is not only in a condition of parity, military speaking, with the United States of America, but constitutes a threat, even if it is not their intention to engage in conflict anywhere, that hangs over us like a shadow and creates a dilemma for men like the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as Secretary of

449
State for Defence, and equally for Governments.
What are we to do about that? I dismiss for the time being this prospect of disarmament. I wish it could be otherwise, but for the time being I dismiss it. We have to concentrate on defence. It may be that we need to spend more; and if we spend more, let us spend wisely. But I believe that we are already making a vast contribution in the circumstances of our economic situation. I doubt whether we can spare this expenditure, but that is a matter for the Government of the day. What we are entitled to do is, as is implied in paragraph 9 of the White Paper, to rebuke other countries associated with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
I approach the subject in this fashion. We are told that the countries associated with NATO have a population of probably 800 million—it may be more if we take into account those countries on the periphery of what are called the countries of the Six, such as Turkey, Greece and Portugal. Yet the manpower that we have ready to put into the field in the event of a conflict (I do not want to dispute with my noble friend Lord Chalfont) is, I suggest, only a quarter of the manpower that the Soviet Union and the other countries behind the Iron Curtain could put into the field. Another fact is that when we speak of Soviet strength we disregard the strength of the German Democratic Republic. I venture the assertion that the military strength in manpower and modern equipment of the German Democratic Republic is in excess of what West Germany can claim. That is a powerful and formidable threat that could be used at any time in Europe to create a situation which would make it impossible to mount adequate defence. That is the situation.
What are we to do? We should bring all possible pressure to bear on our Allies associated with NATO. I regret to have to say this, and it seems like harsh language, but they are not pulling their weight. Take the case of France. France, as the Secretary of State for Defence told me the other day in reply to a Question, although not an integral part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, is associated with the North Atlantic Alliance. It is a very vague affair. The question is: would France in the event of a conflict
450
associate herself with the other countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in order to resist aggression? The answer to that is perhaps not a negative—it is not for me to speak on behalf of the French Government—but certainly it is very doubtful: indeed, there is a suspicion that the French Government have entered into some kind of Treaty with the Soviet Union; that has been rumoured on frequent occasions. But whether that be so or not, France cannot be depended upon in the event of aggression.
It might be argued that at present there is no evidence of imminent aggression. That may well be the case; but the threat is there. In the opinion of some military experts (perhaps I may be forgiven for not mentioning names, but they include people of high rank and some authority in military circles), if there was a conflict in Europe, with the present manpower at our disposal, our forces would be liquidated. Is there an alternative in the use of tactical weapons? My noble friend Lord Chalfont was only too right in saying that you cannot dissociate tactical weapons from nuclear weapons. In any case, if they are going to be used what will happen? Use a tactical weapon and what is the reaction? Even if our tactical weapons are capable of inflicting high casualties on an aggressor, retaliation would be of such a formidable and destructive character that we should be compelled to use the full-blooded nuclear weapon. It is true, as my noble friend Lord Chalfont said, that the power resides in the President of the United States. I do not believe, as my noble friend refused to believe, that the President of the United States would give his consent to the use of nuclear weapons on a formidable scale. Nor do I believe that the Russians want to use the nuclear weapon, because there is bound to be retaliation and both sides would suffer the effect of devastation and destruction. But the threat is there all the same.
I turn, therefore, to what seems to me the right course of conduct for the Government of the day in our own country. Continue with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and use what pressure we can exert on our allies to increase their strength through more manpower and more expenditure. I do

451
not want to go into details on this occasion. It might weary your Lordships if I gave the details of the actual expenditure, leaving aside percentages, incurred by some of the NATO countries and the strength of their manpower, particularly when we speak of establishment and strength. What should we do in the United Kingdom? The answer that I venture to give to your Lordships is this: we may have to provide aircraft carriers and create the greatest possible number of trained reservists, so that we can meet any emergency, for our protection and our own security.
This brings me to the subject of the T.A.V.R. We were told more than a year ago that it was the intention of the Government to create a force of about 10,000 units. I understand that the force is no more than about 5,000 or 6.000. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will correct me if I am wrong. I should be glad to know that I am wrong and that the 10,000 target has been achieved; but I doubt whether that is so. However, entirely apart from the T.A.V.R. target and the possibility of reaching it—or even if it has been reached—I believe that we must build a huge and formidable body of trained reservists. We have of course the reserves associated with the old National Service scheme; we also have the voluntary reserves, the ex-Regulars and the rest of them. My complaint is that hardly any of them undergo training. We rely on their past experience.
It is perfectly true, as regards the Territorial Force, that annual exercises take place, but they are of a perfunctory character. I am not complaining about that, but it is hardly satisfactory in the context of military training because of the possibility of an emergency. Therefore we have to find some device which will enable us to keep men, not in constant training—I do not expect that because it would interrupt employment and disturb industry, which is hardly acceptable—but doing occasional training, perhaps week-end training, so that at any rate we have a body of men who can be relied upon in an emergency and who help to promote the security that we may need. That is what I ask
the Government to do.
452
As regards the rest, recruitment has gone up: very good! As to whether the new three-year Service engagement will be effective, I am not certain. It was tried before, and disclosed defects. It may be more successful on this occasion. The idea of men being allowed to leave the Service after a period of 18 months is excellent from a humanitarian standpoint, but it is a very expensive business to train men and then allow them to go out and to decide whether or not they will come back again. It is hardly conducive to the creation of an effective military force. But at any rate it is worth trying. As regards the rest, I doubt whether the country can afford to spend more. What I do feel, however, is that we are entitled to call upon our allies to spend more.
Finally, I venture this proposition. At the end of the day we shall have to rely for our security, regrettable though it may be, on the United States of America. Sometimes there is talk about the cessation of our friendship with the United States. That would be deplorable, even disastrous, when there is talk about the withdrawal of forces from Western Europe—and incidentally I notice that Dr. Luns, the new Director-General of NATO. was reported in the columns of The Times, either yesterday or to-day, as saying that it would be a dangerous situation for NATO and for Europe if the United States withdraw their forces. I beg the noble Lord to take this point into consideration. The United States may not withdraw their forces immediately, but after their experiences in Vietnam it is very doubtful whether, if there were a conflict in Europe of what we might call a medium character, the United States would be prepared to allow their troops to intervene. We cannot rely on the United States so far as ground forces are concerned: nor should we expect them to come to our aid with ground forces except in the event of full-blooded war. We have to rely on them in the context of the nuclear weapon. It may never be used. But just as the Soviet Union constitutes a threat to us, to Europe and to many of the non-aligned nations, so the United States, with its nuclear strength, constitutes the possibility of retaliation if that threat should ever be implemented.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
5.26 p.m.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely in his interesting speech. In the middle of last December there was an important announcement in the Press concerning British Petroleum's production plans for its Forties oilfield, off the East Coast of Scotland. As your Lordships will know, B.P. is not the only company that has been prospecting for North Sea oil, and though it will take some time for prospecting to lead on to production it is possible to see now that by 1980 this country could perhaps be producing one-third or even one-half of its total oil needs from the North Sea. This is a highly important development, not only from the economic point of view but also from the defence angle. Indeed, it is so important that it seems to me it should be given every possible encouragement and help by Her Majesty's Government. It is of course the Defence side of this problem to which I want to refer for the next few moments. The economic aspect will no doubt be dealt with in any discussion that may take place on the diversification of fuel supplies as a result of the recent coal strike. As your Lordships will appreciate, if we can produce a third of our total oil requirements from the North Sea we shall he able to reduce considerably the percentage of our exports from the Persian Gulf, which for many years now has been our main source of supply.
Some of your Lordships may remember that whenever I have addressed your Lordships' House in our Defence debates I have nearly always made some reference to the great importance of these oil imports from the Persian Gulf and their adequate protection by our maritime forces in times of war. If by 1980 we are going to be able substantially to reduce our imports from the Persian Gulf, this will have a considerable effect on our maritime strategy and naval dispositions. Of course I do not for one moment wish to suggest that from 1980 onwards all will be plain sailing for our great tanker traffic round the Cape; it can only be a guess which is far ahead. But I should imagine that in 1980 we shall still want more maritime forces in the Indian Ocean than we shall be able to deploy there, for although
454
the percentage of our oil imports from the Gulf will be reduced, the total Gulf imports may be nearly as high as ever, since our total requirements continue to increase year by year.
But if, by any means, we are able to reduce the tanker traffic round the Cape we should at least be in a better position than we are to-day to protect that traffic. The recent arrival of a powerful American squadron and a smaller French squadron in the Indian Ocean will have had a favourable bearing on this problem, even though the American squadron has since been withdrawn. But our tanker traffic that is left in the Indian Ocean and Cape areas—and it will be considerable—must assuredly be properly protected if we are to survive in another war. When I say "properly protected" this includes provision of sufficient maritime air forces, either by the Royal Air Force from shore airfields, or by through-deck command cruisers operating V/STOL, aircraft and Sea King helicopters, or by a combination of the two. I see from articles in the Press that in maritime exercises carried out last December there were mixed views as to the effectiveness of R.A.F. maritime aircraft operating from shore airfields. But whatever the analysis of these exercises may have shown, it is certain that outside the range of allied airfields—and worldwide these are getting fewer and fewer—through-deck command cruisers will be essential. And all the more will this be so if the reported building of a fixed-wing carrier by the Russians is correct, for it seems to me that the Indian Ocean would be a likely place for this carrier to be stationed when she comes into commission.
While on the subject of through-deck command cruisers, like the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, I cannot help being disturbed at the slow start they seem to be making. So far as I know—and I believe this is borne out by the White Paper—the first one of them has not even yet been laid down. In my view we do not just need one or two of them. I do not wish to suggest a figure, for although once I might perhaps have been regarded as a modest expert on submarine and anti-submarine warfare, those days are well past and I am now getting out of date. Certainly I should have thought that we would need a number of these

455
through-deck command cruisers. Whatever that number may be it is certain to be more than we can afford, and I would therefore suggest that we should limit these ships to a simple, unsophisticated design. Let us in fact go in for Fords and not for Rolls-Royces, for numbers are all-important where the protection of our worldwide trade is concerned. Do not let us forget that we still have to plan on the assumption that we and our NATO allies will have to meet and beat off the full weight of attack that can be delivered by Russia's great and up-to-date submarine fleet. While we have through-deck command cruisers in mind, could we possibly have a less cumbersome class name for them, and perhaps revert to the good old class of cruiser or even, preferably, carrier?
Now to return to North Sea oil. The delivery of this oil by pipeline to the coast of Scotland will naturally, in wartime, require protection against enemy attack. I imagine that the wellheads and pipelines may not be difficult targets for a skilful and determined enemy. They could, I suppose, be put out of action by nuclear warheads delivered by submarines. And as this could be done without any appreciable number of civilian casualties it might for this reason be an attractive proposition. But even without nuclear warheads, it might be done by submarine sabotage operations, or by the midget submarines that we used against the "Tirpitz" with such success in the last war. It could also be done by air attack. The rigs and the pipelines are "sitting ducks" and their positions will certainly be accurately known by our potential enemies. I believe that we may well find it very difficult to protect our North Sea oil rigs and pipelines even if, as has been suggested by the Dutch, we can build artificial islands from which to operate them; and I cannot help feeling that we would therefore be very well advised to get large quantities of oil safely ashore into this country now, in peace time, and store it in great underground reservoirs dispersed around the country. Disused coal mines come to mind; but I understand that they are in fact unsuited, partly owing to seepage and partly owing to the great expense of pumping oil up from such depths. The disused salt mines in Cheshire would be
456
a more practical solution, and also reservoirs cut out of hard rock such as the granite around Aberdeen, near where the oil will come ashore; or the granite of Lundy Island, at the other end of the country, a few miles outside Milford Haven where we already have great oil installations and pipelines.
To sum up, it seems to me that the successful development of North Sea oil is so important and so urgent, both from the economic and the defence points of view, that it should be given every possible encouragement and assistance by Her Majesty's Government. I believe that now, while we are at peace, we should take steps to stockpile oil in great underground reservoirs. We should take comprehensive steps to protect our North Sea wellheads and pipelines against sabotage in peace time and against direct attack by the enemy in war. This will be a large and expensive item in our Defence bill, but unless we pay for it now we will assuredly pay for it many times over in another war.
My Lords, I have one other thing to say. Last September retired officers in the three Services were granted a substantial rise in their pension rates. The announcement of these higher rates received favourable comment in your Lordships' House at the time, and I only want now to add my own thanks to those of hundreds of other officers who have benefited as a result. I am still in close touch with many retired officers, and over the months since last September I have heard nothing but gratitude from them for this just treatment by Her Majesty's Government.
5.38 p.m.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments as I do not consider myself an expert in world-wide defence by this country. I propose to confine my remarks to the subject of manpower. I was most impressed by the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing that the recruitment of the 15-year olds might be assisted if we could evolve some scheme by which, if they join the Army, the additional year which they should have spent in school could be accounted for by the training that they would get in the Army. The

457
Army has magnificent educational facilities and I feel that some scheme might be worked out so that this 20 per cent. of recruitment is not lost. When one looks at the increased figures of entry and re-engagement shown in the Defence White Paper, they seem to stem from the time when unemployment began to rise. When I was in the Army this always seemed to be the fact; we had greater recruitment as unemployment rose and we lost more people as unemployment declined.
For the young man, the prospect of learning a trade and earning good money appeals to him enormously. Also, young men learn far more than just a trade in the Army—they learn discipline and I think that they also learn to enjoy themselves. A soldier who is in a technical service will not willingly relinquish an engagement at this moment when he has a good career in front of him and as he sees the trade in which he is engaged declining in outside industry. Nor do I think that his civilian counterpart, who is facing unemployment and the threat of unemployment, would be liable to put "Welcome" on the mat for him. While we must make our engagement policies attractive and not retain dissatisfied personnel, who in the Service are, to put it mildly, a nuisance to any unit, the Services must never be put in the position that they are training at great expense to the very highest standards men who are merely there till they judge the time is right to go into civilian life. There must be obligations on both sides.
When it comes to officers and to the future of officers in the Service, I do not think the situation is all that happy. One of the matters which disturbed me in reading this White Paper was the incredibly high failure rate at the Regular Commissions Board. It would be most interesting to know why there is this high failure rate. Again, I am not too happy at the increase in the university entrants. Are we getting into the Service the university graduate who cannot see a future for himself at the moment outside, or are we getting in a man who genuinely wants to make a career in the Army? The training in the Army is magnificent—it always has been—and the technical training is equalled by none. One of the things which the Army teach, particularly
458
in their technical course, is man-management in workshops and so forth, and something which most officers and other ranks in the Army could teach in civilian life is a great lesson in the subject of man-management.
Another matter which rather disturbs me about the officer situation, and about whether we are going to be able to keep our officers, particularly in technical arms, is that their career prospects have been dwindling. In reading the Defence White Paper, one sees that headquarters and formation headquarters are being disposed of in this country and all over the world. This must mean that some of the ranks of promotion for officers are being closed. The reduction in establishments for senior ranks must be considerable, and I feel that, for an officer to be satisfied with his place in the Army, he should see a future in front of him and know that lie can rise to the highest point if he has the ability.
I should also like to say how welcome it is to see the expansion of the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve. The volunteer has always been the backbone of our Forces in an emergency. I must congratulate the Government on the steps that they have taken to expand the T.A.V.R. One of the questions which always interested me when I was in the Services—and it still interests me—is the statement, repeated in the White Paper, that on an outbreak of hostilities B.A.O.R. could be doubled in strength. I wonder how this can be done. We should probably have the men, but how should we move them? It might be comparatively easy in a simple peacetime atmosphere to move large numbers of men from place to place, but in war time it becomes very different. Where is their equipment to come from? Are they to take it with them, which would double the burden which is put on movement, or are we to find it is already in Europe and that the man is merely to be attached to the weapon on his arrival? My Lords, I think this is a most excellent White Paper. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, and thoroughly approve of the continuity we see from year to year. I hope that the Government will press on with this continuity, which is most vital to our Services.
5.46 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, the House will be pleased, and I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, will be pleased, to hear what I have to say. First of all, after many years of following these debates I want to apologise to the noble Lord the Secretary of Defence and to my noble friend who spoke earlier on our side of the House because I did not hear their speeches. I did not hear those two speeches because I was performing a détente operation on my own at the Chinese Embassy, and I decided that it would be wrong and remiss of me to enter into speaking on my constructive or destructive criticisms on this White Paper. Consequently, after putting only two small questions I will sit down and keep my firing power dry, if the gods are kind to me, for another day.
One of two questions I have to put is a tribute. If it has not been paid while I have not been in the Chamber, I would pay a tribute to our troops in the Far East and to the Ministry of Defence, who did such marvellous humanitarian work in Pakistan and nearby to rescue thousands and thousands of ordinary civilians. My second point is this. At one time I was Vice-Chairman of an Estimates Committee that examined military expense right across the world. While I found that the Army and the Royal Air Force were looked after, when I saw the conditions of some of our ratings in ships I realised what many of those boys had to put up with. Consequently, I should like to know (and I will try to return to the Chamber at the end of the debate to hear the reply) what has happened to the Seebohm Report on the welfare of the Navy. With those brief remarks, and asking to be excused, I will sit down and give the Chamber to the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow.
5.48 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, it would appear that we have departed from the list of speakers as printed, and I was therefore rather surprised by the customary ebullience of the noble Lord whom I am following.
LORD DAVIES or LEEK: My Lords, I apologise.
LORD BALERNO: I bear him no grudge for it whatsoever.
460
I should like to begin my speech by congratulating the Government on the decisions they have made. There has been some pressure from those who sit on the Back Benches to increase the number of the infantry and to increase infantry battalions. I think we are really giving ourselves too much credit and that the incoming Government realised the importance of this. In fact, the infantry was increased—but only just in the nick of time; and I imagine that, in view of all its commitments at the present moment, it is very greatly stretched. I would endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said about the possibility of still further increasing the infantry from 53 to 60 battalions. But I would do so with this proviso: that we are better with 53 battalions recruited up to establishment than 60 battalions of which a large number are only three-quarters up to establishment. That is a waste of money, so we must keep an eye on the future of recruiting. If recruiting continues as it is at the moment, then the suggested increase should be all right. But my noble friend, in his speech opening this debate, made some points which indicate that recruiting may not remain at the same rate as it has been at recently.
I note with satisfaction, as do other Peers, recruiting for T.A.V.R. I am not sure that I would not take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, when he wants to get back to the old T.A., and using the name "T.A.". I personally should very much like that. I would not even object to going back to the old "T.F."—which is about where I started. But speaking to the young officers of the force of the present day, and particularly the ones I meet in Scotland, I find that among themselves they seem to prefer to use the word "volunteers" colloquially: it is creeping into the official language It is a long time since the T.A. was valiant in war and I think the young men are trying to start up a new tradition of their own. If they prefer to be called "volunteers" I should not be too sad at dropping the old "T.A.", especially now that the reserve forces of the Army do not seem to have formations so that the word "Army" is not so appropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, asked for clarification of this point.
I should like now to come to the question touched upon by the noble

461
Lord, Lord Ashbourne, in regard to officer supply. For the Army the decline in officer recruitment is quite serious. For the period of nine months prior to December 31 last the officer recruitment was somewhat lower than the comparable period ended December 31, 1970; and this despite an increase in the number of applicants, which was offset by an increase in the failure rate at the Regular Commissions Board. In consequence, one sees from the White Paper that the Sandhurst entry, which was 237, fell very substantially short of the requirement of 450. This point was touched upon by my noble friend Lord Ashbourne. Having myself had some experience of the functioning of the officer selection boards in the Army I have always viewed with suspicion any increase in the rejection rate. Army selection boards are apt to exaggerate their ability to discern leadership qualities. A selection board can say that a man has the qualities of leadership but it cannot say that a specific man has no potential for leadership; and this is where I believe the boards occasionally err. It is far more difficult to spot leadership as a result of the selection board procedure than it is to determine the qualities of motivation and intellectual potential.
To my mind this accounted for the greater failure rate in the Army selection boards some years ago among young applicants from the northern counties and from Scotland. I am not sure whether this difference still persists at the present time, but when we run short of applicants a selection board must be prepared to take risks; and when a poor risk is taken on for training in the Army the cost to the Army is much smaller than the cost of the wastage when that occurs in the R.A.F. The R.A.F. can less afford to take on a poor risk than can the Army. The Army will discover him probably within six months of taking him on for training. If motivation and intellect are right, then it is wonderful how Army training can develop the leadership potential or discover a complete absence of leadership potential.
My Lords, I come now to graduate entry. My noble friend Lord Ashbourne asked whether we were getting the right men from the universities. I think the answer is that on the whole all three Services are getting the right men, but at the present moment we have to guard
462
against a phenomenon which has arisen within the last 18 months, namely, unemployment among graduates. Large numbers of people are now making interesting noises about Service careers merely because they have not been able to get jobs elsewhere. That is why I say that in assessing applicants for commissions we must watch their motivation, and if it is found that it is only within the last year before graduation that they have suddenly become interested in the Services there is every reason to doubt their motivation; and in such cases, to my mind, the selection boards would have every right to reject them.
I can support my argument, at any rate so far as the R.A.F. is concerned, and it might console my noble friend, if we judge the success of the R.A.F. graduate entry scheme. That was undertaken with perhaps some hesitation, some doubt, and I think we owe a great deal to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for having got it through, in spite of certain Service difficulties at the time while he was in charge of the R.A.F. There has been extraordinarily little wastage in training, and when the scheme has been in operation for a few more years we shall see whether it is able to maintain its present promise. An important by-product of this is that. because the policy is in existence, there is much greater encouragement to the young men to take an interest in it, especially now that it is linked with the university cadetships and, still further, with the deferred university cadet entry. Going through the Service units at the universities one gets a pretty sure test of the motivation of the applicants for commissions. They go into the Service units at the universities in the face of great hostility—and I think "hostility" is not too strong a word. They have to stand up to a good deal of something more than chaff from certain types of their fellow students. So that to my mind any young man who is in the Service unit at the university, who sticks in it and then decides to apply for a commission, is a man who must be motivated well for the Services. That is why I would make a plea for the Service units in the universities, and more particularly for the university air squadrons.
I think I have mentioned before to your Lordships that university air squadrons are now running with about 50 per

463
cent. of the cadets holding the university cadetships. That leaves very little room for the student who comes up to the university uncertain whether he wants to make the Services his career, he being an honest chap and not wanting to take a university cadetship. At the university he joins the Service unit. I am talking more particularly of the university air squadrons. He has his taste of flying and he has his taste of discipline. He decides whether or not he likes it. If he decides he likes it and wants a Service career then in the end you get a young officer who will go through without any risk whatsoever of failure. If you want a "dead cert" at training an R.A.F. officer, take the chap who has come to university without being committed to the air squadron, but who joins the air squadron, does his time and is checked out by the air squadron commander; he will go on to prove an absolutely superb officer for the R.A.F. I therefore hope that consideration will be given to increasing the establishment of the university air squadrons to offer more opportunities to that type of man. It does not cost much to keep a student in the university air squadron, and if only one in four of the hitherto uncommitted students who join goes on to a permanent commission—and that is about the figure just now—you are getting real value for your money. There has been a rumour circulating among the universities that for some reason or another certain air squadrons of certain older universities in the South are likely to be increased at the expense of other university air squadrons in more provincial parts and in the fringes of the North.
The shortage of doctors in all three Services is also a serious matter. This has been continuing for about 20 years, at any rate ever since National Service came to an end. I therefore welcome very much the setting up of the committee of inquiry to examine the provision of medical, dental and nursing services. Can my noble friend say whether consideration of the fusion of the three Services in this respect—common medical services
for the Army, Navy and Air Force—is within the ambit of this inquiry which is being conducted under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Clifford Jarrett? I hope it will not be too long before we may expect the committee to report.
464
The close association between the Ministry of Defence and the universities is going very well. It started tentatively, as an experiment. I think that one can get a measure of its successs from the fact that, while the Ministry of Defence pays for certain lectureships, in most of the universities the departments have been increased and many universities are putting more into the studies of defence than is coming from the Ministry of Defence at the present moment. That is a very interesting development. The Ministry of Defence decision has ceded far more than merely what has been supplied by the lectureships established in, I think, seven universities. My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bourne; I certainly did not find this a dull Paper.
6.8 p.m.
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, I wish first to say a few words concerning the Navy and then to move on to make a few remarks about the Army. I think that anybody who has been on Parliamentary visits to the Navy over the last few years will have been deeply impressed, not only by the Navy but by the increased problems of the Fleet Auxiliary, for which I have the greatest admiration. There is a question that I should like to put to the noble Lord the Secretary of State concerning the seamanship branch of the Fleet Auxiliary. They appear to be mostly Chinese drawn from the Hong Kong area. I am told they make superb seamen, and of course are very clean in personal habits, and that they are prepared to put in enormously long hours, which is very often necessary for the work that has to be done in supplying the Fleet. I would also, in passing, say that I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said concerning H.M.S. "Eagle". I thought his last suggestion was one that might offer some hope that if we ourselves cannot keep this magnificent ship, possibly the Americans might be called in to help in some form.
Passing to the Army, I would warmly congratulate the Secretary of State on raising to full strength the four battalions at present at company strength. If I may say so, as an old Rifleman, it was the greatest pleasure to the Rifle Brigade, now the Third Royal Greenjackets, to be

465
now coming up to full battalion strength. It should not be forgotten that this process by which battalions of the British Army are raised and dropped, disbanded and then raised again, produces the most appalling complications within the regiments concerned, as I am sure the noble Lord appreciates only too well. Once a regiment is disbanded all the officers go off to staff appointments, or abroad on other Army appointments; the same happens with the warrant officers, and it goes right down through the line. And even when the battalion is reinstated it takes a very long time before anything of a battalion in operational strength can come into being.
Perhaps I may pass from that, although my next point does very much tie in with it, because those magnificent fighting men, the Gurkhas, have always been attached to my regiment, which is now the Second Royal Greenjackets. To digress for a few moments, I was somewhat interested a short time ago, when I went to the Royal Tournament. The great doors were thrown open and there was the band of the Gurkhas coming in to the regimental march of my regiment, which I am delighted they should play, because of attachment. These soldiers from the hills of Nepal claim a regimental march that comes from Germany, a march that was originally, I believe, written for the German mercenaries. It is an interesting historical fact how these things tie in.
But, my Lords, what is the position? I must say that I am getting slightly confused. I know that the Gurkhas are now part of the British Army. Are they a brigade in strength, or more? I quite understand that it may not be a very tactful moment to pursue this point, but when the Indian Army went into what was then East Pakistan there seemed to be an enormous number of Gurkha troops fighting for the Indian Army. There is no reason why they should not. Putting it bluntly, they are cercenary troops, and they are also the most superb fighting men. I wonder whether there is any idea of the number of Gurkhas serving at the moment in India.
My Lords, I should like to end by repeating what has already been said before about the Territorial Army. At the moment we all realise that the Regular Army is strained to its fullest capacity
466
in the situation which exists at the moment, and there is no doubt that the Army, from the staff angle, must fall back on the T.A.V.R. I hope that this fact will be brought home to all officers and men of the Territorial Army. What is important is that they realise they are in fact the first reserve in these islands and this should help towards their morale and future expansion.
6.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I was very much looking forward to following the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. I am well aware of his admiration and concern for the Royal Navy, and I hope there will be another occasion. I, like many other noble Lords, welcome this White Paper and for the same reason which has been explained to us on a number of occasions to-day: that it is allowing the Armed Forces a period of stability and consolidation, after the ups and downs of the last six years. This is absolutely right, and I am sure it has had its effect on the greatly improved recruiting figures of the last 18 months. There are parts of the White Paper on which I believe the Government are to be congratulated. I studied paragraph 8, dealing with NATO Force improvements, with some interest. These must be welcomed: the restoration of the four infantry battalions, the acceleration of the naval building programme and the additional orders for Buccaneers and Nimrods are a happy start in repairing the gaps in our defences. The withdrawal of our forces from Singapore and the setting up of the ANZUK force has gone smoothly; so has the withdrawal of our forces from the Persian Gulf, much as many of us regret this step on policy grounds. There appears to be a steady build-up of military hardware, though nothing very spectacular, with more modern equipment replacing the old. This can only be of great importance to all three Services.
I shall not speak to-day of Northern Ireland except to add my admiration to that of other noble Lords for the magnificent way in which our men are carrying out a dangerous and thankless task. I want to concentrate briefly on four other aspects of our defence. The first is our maritime strategy. Though the present Government are much more outward-looking than their predecessor, I

467
am still conscious of a slight obsession with the NATO area and the Tropic of Cancer in the Atlantic. The seaborne trade on which we depend in war is worldwide and its protection cannot be confined within boundaries. This applies also to the majority of our NATO allies, most of whom are seafaring nations who depend on imports of oil and raw materials for survival.
I am aware that our membership of E.E.C. is not concerned with defence, but as the nations of Western Europe come closer together our defence policies should do likewise. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, quoted paragraph 9 of the White Paper referring to the need for closer co-operation and identity of view within the Western Alliance. This is very important in the sea area. Can we not persuade our allies of the importance of a worldwide maritime policy in defence of the trade routes, and enlist their aid in helping us to extend a NATO presence in the South Atlantic, the Indian Ocean and the Pacific? I believe, if I heard him aright, that I had a most unexpected ally in this concept in the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. Perhaps he will confirm that that is what he meant when he told us that he thought that the Western Allies ought to get together on a maritime policy.
We have our own responsibilities in Singapore and Malaysia. The French, like us, still have dependencies in the Pacific and the Indian Oceans, and the Portuguese, besides their African provinces, still hold half of Timor and Macao. For our own part, paragraph 14 of the White Paper starts as follows:
"A continuing British maritime presence in the Indian Ocean helps to maintain vigilance in that area of strategic importance."
I turn to Chapter II, paragraph 6(a), which gives in a little more detail what this means. Part of the paragraph reads:
"A force of six ships will be on station East of Suez contributing to the Five-Power defence arrangements and the ANZUK Force, visiting the Gulf, maintaining the Beira Patrol and guardship at Hong Kong and providing a presence in the Indian Ocean and South-East Asia areas … It is expected that larger ships, such as a cruiser, will also visit the area occasionally."
My Lords, with the concentration of the Russian Navy in all these vital areas, are six ships really enough for all these
468
tasks? It would be my hope that in time we could increase our naval presence worldwide and persuade other nations of NATO to support us and do likewise.
In the South Atlantic and round the Cape we have the thorny problem of South Africa. Here is a rich and increasingly powerful nation, bound to us by the Simonstown Treaty, willing and able to undertake the defence of the Cape route on behalf of the Free World. All she needs is a little assistance and encouragement. There is probably not a noble Lord in this House who approves of her internal policies, but is this a good reason for not co-operating with her in mutual defence against a far more dangerous enemy? Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I regard it as a tragedy that South Africa has had to buy her submarines from France and her frigates from Portugal. Vickers, Yarrows, Swan Hunter and others would have been very grateful for those orders. I read in my paper the other day that South Africa now wants a surface-to-air missile system for her frigates, and has asked for it from us. I sincerely hope she will not be disappointed.
May I now turn to something quite different, Malta? I should like to start by offering a very personal congratulation to my noble friend Lord Carrington on the firmness and patience he has shown in these diabolical discussions with Mintoff. As Flag Officer, Malta, I spent two years dealing with the Maltese trade unions representing the 6,000 workers who were then employed in the Naval Base. It was hard going, but between the British and Maltese there was always a sort of competitive camaraderie and a degree of mutual respect which excluded bitterness. I was reminded the other day of a Home Office Report, on civilian morale in this country which came out in the dark days of 1940–41. The Report contained one sentence which has always remained in my memory. It went something like this: "The British have a strong sense of fair play and of playing for the team, but dirty tricks against the enemy arc considered highly desirable and very funny." I think the Maltese have acquired something of that attitude from us.
The Government were absolutely right to refuse to be blackmailed, but I can

469
also understand the anxieties of some of our allies—particularly Italy and the United States. Malta may have lost much of its strategic importance, but in hostile hands it could be a considerable thorn in the side of the Mediterranean NATO countries and the American Sixth Fleet. Apart from the large majority of moderate and friendly Maltese, perhaps our greatest indirect ally may be the deeply devout Roman Catholic Church of Malta, led by that stout-hearted little man, Archbishop Sir Michael Gonzi. The Church in Malta has learned over 170 years to live with the heretic British, but I do not believe that even Mintoff could foist on them either Communist Russia or Muslim Libya. Economically the Island is in a mess and has got to be rescued by somebody. Even at this late hour it is my fervent hope that agreement can be reached, and that an ancient friendship, which means so much to so many of us in this House, will not be lost for ever.
Thirdly I come to the Fleet. The acceleration of the naval construction programme and the improved recruiting will have given a considerable fillip to the Fleet. The guided-missile destroyer Bristol and the last of the "Leander" type frigates come into service this year. These were fine ships, and I hope that the Type 42 destroyers and the Type 21 frigates will prove worthy successors. I am still concerned, as I was last year, about our lack of modern torpedoes and our lack of a surface-to-surface missile. I should be very grateful if my noble friend Lord Carrington could tell us exactly what is happening about those two problems. I assume that the Mark 46, which we are buying from the U.S.A., and the Exocet are stopgaps. What is the ultimate policy for the Fleet in these two important aspects?
But our greatest weekness lies in the air defence of the Fleet—combining, as it does, reconnaissance, strike and fighter defence. The through-deck cruisers which will have to assume the role of conventional cruiser and aircraft carrier are still over the horizon. We have "Ark Royal" until 1978. "Eagle" is to be scrapped. I know that many people feel strongly about this. I myself am torn. If it were merely a matter of money I think I should be in there fighting for her, but there is also
470
the problem of manpower. If, as I am told, "Eagle" in reserve might well put out of commission two frigates, and "Eagle" in commission and unmodernised four or five, I am not sure that, on balance, I would not rather have the frigates. With the best will in the world, the R.A.F. cannot provide an adequate substitute for seaborne airpower. They have insufficient aircraft—and from distant shore bases it is impossible to produce that split-second timing which can make the whole difference between success and disaster at sea. This is a problem that must be solved, and I do not doubt that some of our best brains are being applied to it at this moment. I can only wish them all the best of British luck.
Finally, I come to the men who man the Fleet—the most important element of all. It is my belief that the pay and conditions of service are now as good as they have ever been and should be able to attract young men of the highest quality. Turning to the officer entry, I share some of the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Balerno, but I think that my worries are almost opposite to his. It is my hope that in selecting naval officers too much attention is not put on academic qualifications at the expense of the old-fashioned virtues of leadership, initiative, and lore of the sea. There are some splendid young men who simply cannot pass exams but who in every other respect would make admirable naval officers. I hope that they will not be allowed to slip through the net. In fact, one wonders how many A-levels Drake, Rodney or Nelson would have got. It is the men and not the machines that make a Service, and it is the leaders who set the example.
6.26 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, this evening I wish to deal with three subjects only, and as shortly as possible. One is reserves; the second is the use of the Army in Northern Ireland; and the last a local problem. Since the first rumours in 1964 of the abolishment of the Territorial Army started, concern with the country's lack of reserves has been one of my main excuses for intervening in these debates. The White Paper to-day does little to reassure me. For example, before 1964 in the County of Devon we had eight major and minor

471
units, plus a brigade headquarters. We were then left with one company of T.A.V.R. 2 and eight men of T.A.V.R. 3—of which I was, and am, the honorary colonel. Now the present Government have permitted us to expand the eight men to a company/squadron strength. But once you abolish these long and traditional methods of voluntarily arranging your reserves, it is very hard to build them up again: the spirit of service depends very much on continuity. And the blow was so thorough and ruthless in my county that I doubt whether adequate reserves of that nature will ever again be achieved on a voluntary basis.
Added to that, the knocking out of the Civil Defence organisation was stupidity itself. Time and time again since that occurred their need has been seen in normal day-to-day disasters. As an ex-graduate of the Civil Defence Staff College, I must say I cannot see how we can afford to exist in this dangerous world without the training that it gave. It is now a school for civil servants—attacking the population, I presume; not defending them. Perhaps your Lordships will remember the debate in which the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, attacked, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, defended that decision—with, I thought, the most effective smoke screen ever produced by an ex-Regular officer who should have known, and I believe did know, better and does know better. I refer to his recent article—on which I should like to congratulate him—in The Times.
Then they were getting rid of 14 infantry battalions; now we are getting four of them back, but not much is done to increase your reserves there. Perhaps it might, with extra short service coming in under that plan, but I still do not see its ever being as effective as it was in the past on a voluntary basis; which leads me to the conclusion that the only answer is a reintroduction of National Service. Briefly, about the Navy, it is obvious to all except the moronically anti-national that they must have their own air power. By all means scrap your expensive carriers, but not before each frigate can carry four jump-jet aircraft to fulfil the fixed-wing role. Articles in the Sunday Telegraph two days ago pointed out the relative weakness of the Navy compared
472
with what is claimed in the White Paper. With strategic bombing about to be taken over by advanced rocketry, one is told. it seems to me that the R.A.F. could be split between an Army Corps and a Fleet Air Arm, as in America.
A short paragraph 2 states that the Army will remain in Northern Ireland for so long as they are needed. From a political point of view, my views on what the Army should do in Northern Ireland are fairly well-known and I do not propose to repeat them. What I wish to do is to criticise the way the politicians and the High Command between them use the Army. First, the Army is supposed to be used in aid of civil power; but it has not been, and is not being, used in that way. It is in fact the only "civil power" and that situation should never have been allowed to occur. The Army should shoot to kill only after the police have failed to disperse a crowd. We have had plenty of practice in that. But rubber bullets and water cannon are not Army weapons; they are riot police weapons. If the Army are used they should be used for war, not with hands tied behind their backs.
It is stupid to say that there can be no military solution. Tanks, mortars and artillery could ensure a military solution, but that is not politically feasible. Personally, I think the withdrawal of the Army is the only way the blockheads of both sides can be made to see sense. Meanwhile, with the yellow cards, the water pistols and the water cannons, the politicians are just making the Army "sitting ducks" for the gunmen. I think that January 30 was the result of this policy. Why, for example, does a crowd of 50 to 100 create a disturbance every afternoon between 3.30 p.m. and dusk in William Street in Londonderry? It is to draw the military on to the street to protect property, so that they can then be sniped at. If when that first occurred bullets had been used, there would not have been this trouble since, and the Creggan and Bogside would not be ruled by the gunmen. If, as the White Paper states, the Army are going to stay in Northern Ireland, then the police should do the police work and the Army should be used in reserve, as at Newry. Give them the flak jackets and the water cannon, but leave the Army to do the shooting and then only when necessary; that

473
is, in aid of the civil power. That is not what is happening at the moment.
Why, when soldiers are shot at from churches, as, for example, from St. Mary's Church in the Creggan, when a soldier called Firth was badly wounded, are they told to be hesitant and are not allowed to shoot back? This to me is being far too careful. If I may quote from my experience in Italy during the war with the partisans, we had lots of churches in which we stored our arms and we asked the local padres to help us as much as possible. If I had been on the other side I should very willingly have blown the places to bits. I think this should be done in cases where churches are used for sniping purposes. I personally know of two such incidents. We now know that there have been 58 soldiers killed, with seven more in Aldershot to-day. How many more are scarcely living cabbages as a result of their wounds? How many more will be needed to make an emergency into a war? I must say my feelings are that we should declare war or get out and let them murder each other, and that we should refuse to allow these murderers to enter and stay in this country while keeping out friendly people. How many more Post Office Towers and Aldershots do we need to bring us to that conclusion?
If I may now turn to my little local problem, or go from the general to the particular, when the powers-that-be got rid of the Army Brigade at Plymouth the County of Devon was left with only one Regular Army base; namely, the Wessex Brigade training centre at Wyvern Barracks in Exeter. The whole of Wessex then heard with alarm that some little man with a computer had decided to move the brigade training centre to, of all places, Lichfield. Of all the Services the Army in particular, to my way of thinking, has local roots and, to us in Wessex, Lichfield is very nearly a foreign country. The British Legion, of which I am County President, the Old Comrades' Associations, the Regimental Associations, the County Councils, the Lord Lieutenants—everyone has deplored this move. Though we in the West Country produce the best sailors, our soldiers are also second to none, and the West Country regiments have the reputation of being the steadiest and most reliable in
474
the United Kingdom. Semper Fidelis is the motto of the best of these.
If the Ministry pushes through this move, it will strike a blow at recruiting and at local associations with local people. Dads and Mums can get down to young Tommy's passing-out parade in Exeter, whereas to go to Lichfield would be out of the question. The only permanent Regular forces in the area would then be the Navy and its subsidiary; and of course, with due respect to the noble Earl who spoke before me, every so often the Navy has a mutiny, so it would be a very serious state of affairs to leave the West Country in that position. Lastly, in the new divisional concept, the Welsh Brigade has already opted out and is being allowed to remain in Brecon. We in Wessex demand to stay in our own county. I trust that the noble Lord will put our minds at rest when he comes to wind up this debate.
6.38 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I was going to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, for not following him, but in his closing remarks he rather implied that mutiny in the West Country is something which might happen to the Navy. The last mutiny with which I was in any way closely in touch was in the Army. I shall not go into details, because I should hate to embarrass any noble Lord. I do not wish to detain your Lordships and I shall not be following the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. I have one plea to make, and that is for the salvation of the "Eagle". I told my noble friend the Secretary of State that I would say this.
I, too, have had the same great difficulty in deciding on priorities as my noble friend Lord Glasgow has had. He plumped for the frigates, but I plump for the carriers. And why, my Lords? We have a reason to have carriers. I shall not bore your Lordships with the many stories that there are about that, but if you care to read past speeches of mine, not to mention those of more erudite noble Lords, you will find ample evidence to show that this is so. The Government know the reason, because they have the "Ark Royal" in commission, and they therefore recognise the need for carriers. They probably recognise it even more now, as a result of the exercises which took place towards

475
the end of last year. They must have shown them even more clearly than before that shore-based support of naval forces at sea has an extraordinarily limited range. It would not be proper to give an idea of what that is, but it has an extraordinarily limited range if the full support that is required is provided.
We are told in Chapter I of this document that the Russians have a really quite staggering capability in guided missiles and other types of weaponry. They also have many aeroplanes of all sorts, shapes and sizes. They must surely have targeted all the shore bases of NATO in one form or another, and surely our only hope to have a credible resistance to them over and above the nuclear weaponry, which was referred to earlier, is to have elements at sea which can of themselves present a threat. I will not say that we can totally damage on our own: of course we cannot. I will not say that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was not right to press us to try and try again to get some form of mutual disarmament. But I would say that in this NATO area—forgetting for the moment the wider world, for which the carrier is even more necessary—we should surely be unwise, to put it mildly, to throw away the only spare carrier that we have.
When we debated this when the Supplementary or Interim Statement, or whatever it was called, was put out, it was the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, from the Opposition Front Bench who said that, if you want one carrier, surely it is illogical not to back it up. There are two reasons why it needs backing up, and one (which is why I am speaking now, although I had not planned to) is because of a particular sentence in paragraph 7(c) in Chapter II of this Statement, which says that the V/STOL aircraft is not suitable for maritime operations and that a considerable amount of development would be required in order to make it so. My Lords, the first lecture that I attended on what ultimately became the Naval surface-to-air guided missile was in 1945, and it was just about twenty years later that the weapon came into service. This is what worries me. If the Harrier is not suitable for maritime operations, if development is required, heaven knows when we shall get it!
476
The Government know that we want carriers because they are keeping the "Ark Royal". Why, therefore, are they risking being left without one? It may be said, "Well, this will not happen; we will have a planned refit; everybody will be nice and docile then and there will be no threats." Admitedly, if a refit was happening to-morrow this would be so from a maritime point of view. But who can be sure that in the late 'seventies the picture will look as it does now? Who could have been sure in 1931 that in 1938 we should have been on the brink of war? I do not suppose it will happen that way, but there is a chance. Here we have this ship, whatever the penalty of keeping it going, which could replace the "Ark Royal", not only when it is refitting at an awkward moment but also if it has some unforeseen disaster, which I mentioned to your Lordships the last time I spoke on this matter. It is only about a fortnight ago that the "Ark Royal" herself got into trouble in New York harbour. It is possible that she was not really in trouble at all and that it was only the journalists, who were deprived of a party they were going to, who brushed it up to make it look like that. But it could have been a disaster. It could be a very awkward place to anchor; it is a very confined harbour. I do not know whether they were in the Hudson River or the other side, but it is not an easy harbour in which to control a large ship; and this sort of thing goes on. All kinds of things happen. That ship alone has had minor disasters over the years as have other ships. It is not obvious when it is a frigate because there are many of them and it does not hit the headlines. But if you have only one such ship it is vulnerable.
I have been searching for three days for some argument to try to get through to the Government what I am talking about. I am not getting only at the Government, because their advisers—and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Glasgow was right in saying so—are behind them in this approach. Surely, throwing away the "Eagle" is rather like any of us, now that the coal strike has been, I hope, solved and the lights are coming back again, saying: "We laid in our small cooker because we had only electrics; we laid in a special oil lamp and we laid in a whole lot of candles. Now we are going to throw these away

477
because they get in the way; there is not room in our cupboards and there is a possibility that they might catch fire because they have paraffin inside them, or whatever it is. They are difficult to maintain; they will not be useful; the disaster will never occur again". This is the kind of thing we are doing. I know that it will be said that by this process we are using up manpower which could well be used better at sea in frigates. I would question whether one frigate, which my noble friend mentioned, is worth keeping instead of this absolutely essential alternative means of defence power. I would therefore implore my noble friend the Secretary of State to give very serious thought to this point and to give particular thought to whether this firmness of view is not perhaps mistaken. I am not the only one who thinks like this: there are many people who, with the greatest respect, have as much knowledge and experience as the noble Lord's advisers in the wider sense. They may not be so capable but they have quite as much experience. There are many people who have put this viewpoint. and surely it requires consideration.
I will not bother your Lordships with any other points except one, and that is to say that I believe that the White Paper, apart from this one issue, represents a splendid picture. The most heartening part about it is the improvement, not only in recruiting but in re-engagement. If you look at it. this is probably not due, as some people have suggested, to the unemployment situation. It is not perhaps due only to the fact that there is a bit of strife going on around the world to encourage people to join. I think it is due to better management and greatly improved morale, and I think my noble friend the Secretary of State can himself be greatly congratulated on the improved morale.
6.47 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, may I join my noble friend Lord Chalfont in congratulating the Secretary of State on the clarity of his Statement? May I also, with somewhat rueful memories of the past, congratulate him on its shortness; because I remember that my own contributions to earlier debates were distinguished rather by their excessive length than by anything else. May I also say that I am glad to see that as time
478
passes he is, I think, lessening his attempts to differentiate between the defence policy followed by the present Administration and the one followed by their predecessors. As he well knows, policy in defence or in any great Department is really a continuum: it runs in a steady stream. with minor fluctuations, from one Government to another. Without knowing precise details, let me take the Jaguar programme as an example. The operational requirements for the Jaguar were conceived under a Conservative Administration; the joint Anglo-French agreement to manufacture it was also a Conservative concept. Production went on throughout the period of the Labour Administration; but towards the end of that Administration, it was felt that the sophistication of this craft made it too expensive to be a training aeroplane, and that it should be used purely for operational purposes. And that decision was carried into effect as policy by the present Administration. That is really how things happen.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me for stopping him in midstream, I hope, but is not that splendid story of what happened to the Jaguar the likely story of what is going to happen to the improved Harrier?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM. My Lords, I hope that it happens a little more quickly than for the Jaguar, because I believe we are further along the road with the Harrier than we were with the Jaguar at its beginnings. As the noble Lord well knows, the development period for an aircraft of this sophistication is from seven to ten years, at least. But at any rate we have the aeroplane, and know that it has a development potential.
However, I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State on three, as I think, distinctive new elements in this present White Paper. First, there is the new form of engagement. The flexibility that is built into the soldier's career is entirely welcome and is made possible by the excellent recruiting figures we have seen. Secondly. I should like to congratulate him on the very sensible decision to use the present slack in the economy to order additional Buccaneers and Nimrods. These aircraft, which are good aircraft, are replacing other good aircraft which by now are rather old.

479
While talking about Nimrod, I would ask where the new Nimrod squadron is to be stationed, because I have the hope that it might be at Ballykelly. I do not know whether the future of Ballykelly has been decided, but a decision that this important Northern Irish base should house the Nimrods would be welcomed by many people here and in Ulster. Lastly, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on the new machinery of defence procurement—and about that I am going to say more later.
My Lords, it is perhaps not inappropriate that we should debate Defence in this Chamber following shortly after another place opened its discussions on the Common Market Bill. The predecessor of the Secretary of State said (and I believe this to be true, and hope that he still holds to it) that Europe can be defended only by Europe. The Americans have protected Europe since 1945. They have done great things during that period, but now, quite rightly, as they see the growing economic strength of Europe and Japan they are feeling strongly that we should hear more of the burden of our own defence. This, I believe, is justified and entirely reasonable and we must accept it—even if we see the Russian strength or the strength of the COMECON Powers growing, as it has been growing, as it has been described as growing, by the White Paper, by the Secretary of State, by my noble friend and by other speakers. Russian military strength is growing at a remarkable rate because of a ruthless determination to follow a straight line in their policies. We must not be hypnotised by the situation. Even on conventional present lines we are doing a great deal to counter it.
If one reads the communiqué following upon the Eurogroup conference in December, 1971, one sees that the European Powers as a group are not simply sitting still and watching Russian growth without doing anything about it. A substantial amount is being done, as the noble Lord mentioned. If we take only one simple element in defence, Europe is providing itself with 1,100 new main battle tanks. What is really important is that the armies are receiving some 8,500 anti-tank weapons. I agree with my noble friend that tanks are best
480
countered by tanks, but they are important and expensive pieces of equipment, and a very large supply of anti-tank weapons, to be operated by the infantry. is good for the morale of the infantrymen and will partially counter the very great Russian superiority in tank forces.
But we can do more than this, without increasing to any marked degree our own expenditure on our own defence. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. that 5½ per cent. of our gross national product is not enough; but we have done more and could do more. Let us take the 5½ per cent. of the gross national product and see what we could do with it. What we must achieve is the optimum use of Europe's resources. The first thing we must do is to try to achieve a common infrastructure for NATO forces in Europe. It has been said before, and I think it must be said continually, that one of the nonsenses of the situation is that, say, a German aircraft landing on a British base, cannot do more than refuel. It cannot rearm; cannot refit; it can just take in fuel and, if it is lucky, fly away. This is the basic importance of the multi-role combat aircraft. When this comes into operation, we shall have a common front-line aircraft for the British, the Germans and the Italians. Let us hope that perhaps the Dutch, the Danes and other NATO Powers may also buy this aircraft, the future of which is now, I hope, assured.
Also may I say in relation to a common infra-structure that I am delighted to read in the White Paper that the French and British are preparing a common infrastructure organisation for the Jaguar and for the three helicopters which are building in common. This can only strengthen the effectiveness of the new equipment we are providing for our Armed Forces. But we must also think beyond an act of policy creating a common infrastructure. We must be prepared to move towards national specialisation. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, spoke, I thought rather surprisingly strongly, against the British purchase of EXOCET.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I merely asked the Minister for a reply to the question whether it was necessary for us to order these weapons and why we could not produce them ourselves.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think the answer is simple. It is a major nonsense for all of us to produce surface-to-surface missiles; for the French to produce one, and for the Germans to produce one, when if one of us produces a good missile, we can all buy it. We should thereby save substantial expenditure on research and development. That is what I mean by national specialisation. One of my hopes is that out of the Eurogroup—which now has a respectful name after its earlier frivolous appellation—we shall get a series of national weapons that will become internationally used; because confidence between members of Europe grows as the European Community develops into a real harmony of understanding. Eurogroup might one day become the European defence community. This I am certain would be the ultimate end of a move towards national specialisation leading to the most economically possible production of weapons for the allied forces of Western Europe.
One can ask what specific British contribution towards this there might be. I must say that the through-deck cruiser fitted with the developed Harrier might be one such contribution, built in series in British dockyards or perhaps a British hunter-killer built in series in British dockyards. This is a direction in which I think we should be moving. The other area where I think we can get better value for money is in the whole area of devolution of financial responsibility in our expenditure. Here I come back to the point I made in my opening remarks where I congratulated the Secretary of State on the new organisation of defence procurement. I have always been as firm an enemy of the Treasury as I have been of the Warsaw Pact Powers.
I collected the other day a cutting which satisfied me very much. I am afraid that I have misplaced it in the course of my speech. Nevertheless I can remember it accurately. It is to the effect that the Department of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has made a study of the checking of cash payments by Army units. They found that the cost of checking these payments was half a million pounds more than the actual cost of the petty cash payments. As a result they have, very wisely, cancelled this particular procedure. But in fact it goes a great deal further. I believe that the whole re-
482
organisation of defence procurement is of the first importance. It is something for which I have argued for a long time. Noble Lords who have suffered under Treasury control will read paragraph 22 with interest. In the past, the Permanent Secretary was the accounting officer and was accountable for the whole expenditure of his Department. With the new arrangement we see that under the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency there will be four systems controllers responsible for development and production, one for each of the main areas, land, sea and air, and one for guided weapons. It is important that each will be an accounting officer for his own area and directly accountable for the research and development for which he is responsible. This is pushing responsibility down the line.
I am delighted that the Controller Air is also the Controller for the Royal Air Force. Each of the Armed Forces has its on Controller, although I believe that the Army still calls him the Master General of Ordnance. This is something for which I have argued for a long time. It is part of the whole business of devolving responsibiltity to the point where responsibility lies, and not letting the nonsense of spending half a million pounds on checking petty cash multiply up in the manufacture and production of weapons and weapon systems.
My Lords, may I turn for a moment to the question of recruiting. I must say that the figures are a weight off all our minds. I think that everyone connected with recruiting for the Armed Forces deserves the congratulations of your Lordships' House. Up to a point I agree with the Secretary of State that past uncertainties have had an adverse effect on recruiting. I do not believe that unemployment is a major factor. A lot of research has been done on this matter, and although unemployment is a factor, it is of only marginal importance. Pay, in an understandable form, is of great importance. Perhaps most important of all is a sense of purpose, the realisation that if you join the Armed Forces you are not going to kick your heels in some remote barracks for a period of your life but that there is a specific, understood social need for your presence there. I think this is clear to-day, and that, in my view, taken together with proper pay for the job, is

483
the main reason for the upswing in recruiting.
Reading this White Paper I was surprised to see the large proportion of young males enlisted at the age of 15. I thought I knew something about the subject, but that is a statistic about which I did not know. I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, in urging the Secretary of State to consider the possibility of treating a first year at one of the military training schools as the equivalent of a last year at a secondary school. The only training establishment which I know intimately is Halton. There is no better training for a young man anywhere than is provided at that establishment. It is education in its highest sense. The one point on which I would not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, is on the question of individuals who are considering an apprenticeship. The apprenticeship training at those Ministry establishments which I have visited and about which I know is of the highest order. When you remember that Whittle is a product of Halton, he came through the whole apprenticeship training scheme—
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord and I am grateful to him for giving way, but perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was referring to apprenticeships in industry and comparing them with deadend jobs. I was not comparing them with apprenticeships in the Services.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord; I misunderstood him. I think we are all in accord that we should like to see permission granted to a boy who wishes to go on to one of the military training establishments to do so and for the first year's training to be treated as the equivalent of a last year at school.
May I refer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, about the problems and virtues of a university training for officers. The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, was far too kind to me. I was only a member of a Service Board which reached decisions on the graduate entry to the Royal Air Force, but that Service Board was deep-thinking and
484
long-sighted. I am certain that the policies that we jointly produced have proved effective, although, as he said, those decisions were taken with some misgivings. One of the reasons why we wanted the officers' recruitment for the ultimate command stream, or the major proportion of it, to come from the universities after graduation was the reason the noble Lord has given: that the young men who one day would be our Air Marshals would have been exposed, at a formative period in their lives, to all the tensions and debates going on in a modern university and the modern world in which they would have to operate. It is of the greatest importance that soldiers are good politicians, in the best sense that they understand policies and politics. If Northern Ireland did not exist to prove this point I think that we should have to invent something else. The hard fact of life is that the use of military power is a political act of profound importance. and officers have to understand what politics are all about. We are all delighted that, at least so far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, the university entry scheme is proving so successful.
My Lords, may I make one final point in relation to this subject in the form of a direct question to the Secretary of State. Is he, this evening, able to say that the future of the air squadrons is secure? Or may I read between the lines and assume that if he is buying Bulldogs for them they are likely to be there for some little time yet? May I make an interpolation, as did my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek. I should like to add my thanks to those which he expressed to the Royal Air Force and the Armed Forces for what they did in East Pakistan. Someone I know very well was in the last Hercules out of Dacca and it was a most interesting first-hand story. The R.A.F. Hercules were on the Indian Army Command network and the pilots were able to talk to the Indian pilots. The last pilot had the rather interesting message: "Would you please hurry up, as I have some unfinished business to complete" What struck my acquaintance so strongly was not only the technical skill and courage of the R.A.F. pilots who brought them out, but also the wonderful reception which was given to them when they came to Singapore. An absolutely splendid job was done and I

485
do not think that "Thank you" has been said often enough.
I should like to copy the Secretary of State and close quickly after making a short speech. The speech of my noble friend Lord Shinwell struck a deep chord in me. He spoke with a stoical disenchantment which can come only from an elder statesman. I believe, with my noble friend Lord Chalfont, that we must negotiate. I also fear that within the period of the next year these negotiations will not be of particular significance or success. Nevertheless, I believe that, for the hope of mankind and for our electorate, we must continue to negotiate and never relax our efforts, in the belief that our negotiations must be successful. We must continue to act as if the barbarian were always at the gate—as at the moment he is. We demand from our troops in Northern Ireland, where they are under quite exceptional stresses, a high degree of steadfastness, to which the Secretary of State has paid tribute. I believe that we must demand the same steadfastness from people at home, in the fact both of the threat from the Warsaw Pact Powers and also of the continual stresses of our situation in Northern Ireland, which I believe will continue for some time. Steadines at home is the basis of steadiness of our troops abroad. I would put to your Lordships a simple proposition which I believe to be a true one: that sentimentality about the use of armed forces is as dangerous as brutality; both can lead to disaster.
7.11 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, is much too modest about his achievements when he was in the Ministry of Defence. I know something about them and how much the Forces owe to what he did. He always recalls the occasion when he made rather a long speech in your Lordships' House. I also recall it, because I happen to know that the noble Lord threw away five-sixths of the material provided for him by his Department. Even so, when he had been going for some time he felt that he had been going too long. It has happened to all of us, but the noble Lord is one of the few people who would actually admit it. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for the support that he has given to the Procurement Executive,
486
and for what he said about it. Indeed, generally speaking, I think I agree with almost everything the noble Lord said in his speech, and in particular the way in which he allied himself to Lord Davies of Leek's tribute to the Forces for what they did in East Pakistan and Bangladesh. I think we should all be proud of the way the Royal Air Force carried out their job.
As usual when defence is discussed in this House, we have had a comprehensive debate. I think, in general, that I am grateful for the way in which this White Paper has been received. But, of course. everybody who spoke without exception wanted something more, whether it be 10 extra battalions, a number of extra ships or even instant disarmament. My Lords, I should like all these things. but my job is to get a proper share of our resources for defence and to allocate that share in a sensible manner. I cannot, and I clearly do not, please everybody.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and also the noble Lords, Lord Gladwyn and Lord Shinwell, in three most interesting speeches, gave between them a sobering account of Soviet military strength and the problems of European collaboration. I agree with much of what they all said. I must warn the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that when in the Defence debate in this House last year I quoted approximately the same facts and figures that he quoted, I was branded as a warmonger by some of the noble Lord's friends in another place. I hope that he will not suffer a similar fate. I can assure him that if he does I shall willingly come to his defence and protect him as best I may.
LORD CHALFONT: May I interrupt the noble Lord to say that that would only make things worse?
LORD CARRINGTON: I hope the noble Lord does not think that I meant that. I was also told that I was reactionary and an imperialist by the Soviet Press. But perhaps the noble Lord will not mind sharing that description with me. I need no convincing, any more than he does or anybody in your Lordships' House, that in Europe the military balance is heavily weighted against the West. I said so last year and I repeated it to-day. Where I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is not in

487
his analysis of the problem, but in the practicability of his solutions. One possibility would indeed be a massive increase of conventional forces. But the noble Lord knows, as do the noble Lords, Lord Gladwyn and Lord Shinwell, as well as I do, that it is simply not practical politics to suppose that the countries of Europe would be prepared to double their level of defence expenditure save in the face of imminent war.
What does the noble Lord propose if that is not possible? Détente and a European Security Conference to agree upon a reduction of forces in Europe. These are admirable sentiments and I have no quarrel with them. But it takes two to achieve a détente. It is now nearly four years since NATO first issued its invitation to the Warsaw Pact Powers to talk about mutual and balanced forces reductions, and so far, as I said in my opening remarks, the other side have not responded. Nor indeed do I accept that we in this country have dragged our feet in other directions.
It seems to me in these circumstances that NATO has no alternative but to maintain its defences: and because we cannot match the Warsaw Pact man for man and tank for tank, we must continue to rely on a spectrum of deterrence, extending from conventional forces at one end, through tactical nuclear weapons to the ultimate strategic deterrent. But because we rely on nuclear weapons, it does not mean that NATO is neglecting its conventional forces. I referred earlier on to some of the expenditure that was taking place in NATO, and I might add that the Eurogroup countries announced during 1971 and 1972 that their forces would take into service 1,100 new battle tanks, 400 modern combat aircraft, 50 fleet units and many other items of equipment: and the Americans have given a reciprocal undertaking to maintain and improve their forces in Europe. I am not saying—and the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, would pick me up if I were—that a great deal more does not need to be done; but I assure the House that, within realistic budgetary limitations, NATO is making a serious effort to strengthen its conventional forces. Perhaps we are not doing as much as we should, but it seems to me that for the first time this year we in Europe are
488
becoming aware of the need to do more. I must say that I share the conclusions at the end of Lord Shinwell's speech rather more than I share the conclusions at the end of Lord Chalfont's speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, suggested, if I understood him aright, that it was invidious to pay men serving under the notice scheme less than those on long-term engagements. But this is already the position. Men serving on long engagements receive higher rates of pay than those on short engagements, and no change of principle is involved in this. Indeed, I should have thought that there was some sound sense in this from the point of view of the Services. A man who is prepared to engage for a length of time is worth more to the Services, because the Services can plan on his being in the Army, the Navy or the Air Force for that length of time. And there is nothing of course to stop the man on the notice engagement from re-engaging on a long-term service engagement.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, referred to some cases where we are purchasing defence equipment from abroad—Exocet and the Mark 46 torpedo. Of course I share their concern that foreign purchase was necessary in these cases, as opposed to collaboration, and I assure noble Lords that I am fully aware of the importance of maintaining a proper industrial base for defence. But I think that in the very nature of things there are bound to be occasions and cases where We shall find it necessary to buy from abroad. We have to find the right balance in each case between operational, budgetary, technological and industrial factors, and I am sure that there will be cases when it will be right that the former should override the latter. But, as I said in my opening remarks—and I think it is worth saying it again—I do not believe that we should be put in the position that we were, for example, with Exocet, where because there was a change of policy there was no alternative but to buy from abroad. It was because of the time scale in this case that it proved to be necessary.
There is just one thing I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, who suggested that because of the unemployment situation and the industrial

489
position we ought to order a great many more pieces of military equipment. At first sight this seems to be very sensible, and indeed we have done it in some instances in the past; but I would ask noble Lords to remember that the time-scale of most pieces of sophisticated equipment is rather a long one and the employment generated, and the expenditure, probably does not occur until some three or four years later. One has to take into account clearly the results on the economy of ordering large amounts and large pieces of equipment which is not going to have its effect until three or four years later, when it is not so certain what the economic situation of the country will be.
Many noble Lords—my noble friends mostly—have mentioned the disposal of H.M.S. "Eagle". I know that they speak with great sincerity and concern about this. I hope none of my noble friends will accuse me, as a former First Lord of the Admiralty who spent quite a long time trying to retain a carrier force, of being against carriers as such. I appreciate as well as they do that it is a sad occasion when a ship such as "Eagle" reaches the end of her life after 20 years' service with the Fleet; and I share the sense of regret which noble Lords have expressed. But the situation is that in 1970 the present Government stated that it was not their intention to build another aircraft carrier. This was when we came into office, and of course it was then too late to reverse the decision which had been taken by the previous Government. In any case, it was too expensive to do so. One has only to look at the cost of the new American carriers to realise that this would not have been a practicality.
Our plan has been to re-provide for the capability of aircraft carriers in other ways—as indeed was reflected to some extent in the proposals of the previous Government. The Royal Air Force will assume responsibility for providing fixed-wing air support for the Royal Navy from shore bases. We are building up a fleet of nuclear submarines, and new weapons systems will be introduced—for example, the surface-to-air guided weapons Sea Dart, Seawolf and Exocet, which we have just spoken about. The Sea Kings now carried by "Eagle" will be deployed on "Tiger" and "Blake" and later on the new cruisers which will start entering service at the end of the decade. We are
490
considering whether it would be right to supplement all these weapons system with V/STOL, aircraft embarked in ships. In these circumstances the question which the Government had to decide in 1970 was whether, and if so for how long, the aircraft carriers already in service ("Ark Royal" and "Eagle") could be run on while all these measures were achieving their full effect. We announced the decision in the autumn of 1970. So the disposal of H.M.S. "Eagle" should have come as no surprise to your Lordships now, because it was announced at that time. Our decision was that "Ark Royal" could, and should, be run on until the late 1970s. She had just then completed a major modernisation; she could operate Phantom aircraft which had been purchased for her; and the money and manpower needed to retain her in service could be found without unacceptable sacrifice from the rest of the Fleet.
But "Eagle" was a different matter. She had not received a major refit since her modernisation in the early 1960s. Unlike "Ark Royal", she could not operate Phantoms and, like "Ark Royal", she had a large ship's company. If we were to run her on beyond 1972 she would have had to have a big and costly refit. If we wished her to operate Phantoms—and this really was the only sensible course—we should have had to adapt her specially during her refit, accepting the increase in cost, which would have been something between £25 million and £30 million. We should have needed to provide aircraft for her and, possibly most important of all, we should have had to lay up other operational units in order to provide manpower for the ship's company. I believe that this would have been the equivalent of the ships' companies of about five frigates. So the Government's view was that, all in all, the sacrifices were too big. Even had we chosen to accept them, "Eagle" would not have been in service long enough, before the deployment of the new cruisers and other new naval weapons systems, to make the cost of her refit truly effective.
We also looked—and I hope my noble friends will accept this from me—at the possibility of keeping "Eagle" in reserve after 1972; but this option was open to the same difficulties in manpower and I money and raised the same doubts as to

491
the value we should get from it. We could have kept "Eagle" in reserve, as she now is, with some refitting; but this would have locked up 350 to 400 men, the equivalent of a ship's company of one and a half frigates. The cost, including the cost of the manpower, would have been between £1½ million and £2 million a year, and also we should have had to refurbish and maintain the Sea Vixen aircraft, which otherwise would have no use. Had we brought "Eagle" out of reserve in the 1970's, her operational capability would be no better than it is to-day. In particular, the Sea Vixens would not be a proper match for the threat which we must expect to confront us. They are old aircraft, even now.
For all these reasons, my Lords, the Government's conclusion was that the right course was to withdraw "Eagle" from service, as previously planned. I must say, with great regret, that all these arguments, and the conclusions to which they led, in my view, hold good to-day. Basically the question is one of priorities. The Defence budget is limited, and we must spend our money in the most effective way we can.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, would the noble Lord permit me to intervene? I realise that he had perhaps a pressing engagement, but would he read the arguments and points put forward in this debate during the period when he was not able to be present? And would he listen to the arguments put forward in another place, because there are people who feel very strongly, not that "Eagle" should he kept in commission—the difficulties of that are recognised—and not that she should be kept in the maintained reserve, but that she should not be sent to the scrapyard to be broken up. If the noble Lord would agree to keep an open mind until after the debate in another place, it would he some comfort.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, of course I will read the debate in another place. I will read anything that I have missed in your Lordships' House: I think I heard every speech in this debate. But I must tell the noble Lord quite frankly that I do not think that there is anything about H.M.S. "Eagle" which I have not heard. I have listened to this argument
492
over a period of years now, but of course I will willingly give my noble friend an undertaking to read and ponder again.
My noble friend referred to guided-weapon projects. I must tell him that it is the Government's intention to equip the Royal Navy with new air-to-ship guided weapon systems for use in the naval Lynx helicopter. This is one of the projects that is listed in Chapter VI of the White Paper. Also the Royal Air Force has requirements for both medium and short-range air-to-air missiles to supplement those in service at present. We are studying ways of satisfying these requirements, and I hope that it will not be long before I am able to announce our plans.
My noble friends, Lord Ashbourne and Lord Glasgow, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, raised the question of the new through-deck cruiser. Perhaps I might say one word about this. The main role of the new cruiser will be to deploy at sea the capabilities which are not available in destroyers and frigates; namely, the deployment of the large Sea King helicopter and full facilities for command and control of naval and maritime forces. The cruiser will contribute to area air defence with its Sea Dart medium-range surface-to-air guided weapon, and the design of the cruiser will also allow for the option of operating V/STOL, aircraft, should we take the decision to do so.
The through-deck, which is the distinctive feature of this design, will be needed to allow the most effective operation of the cruiser's complement of anti-sub-marine helicopters irrespective of whether V/STOL is adopted or not. Obviously, in designing we try to look ahead and take account of possible developments that may take place. The present position is that a design assistance contract is shortly to be placed with Vickers, as the lead shipbuilders, to cover all the remaining preparatory work of the design of the cruiser. I expect that the order for the first cruiser will be placed in about a year's time, and she is planned to come into service in the late 1970s. As to the name, I share my noble friend Lord Ashbourne's dislike of the title "through-deck cruiser". There have been some unworthy suggestions in some parts of my Ministry that it is meant as a disguise for something which is a little different.

493
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, also urged on me the value of reserve forces. I agree with him that reserve forces are valuable. We must see them in the context of our strategic concept and policy. We are no longer in the days of massive mobilisation and expeditionary forces. Within our general concept there is room for discussion on the precise size of the reserves. In this respect we decided in October, 1970, that the T.A.V.R. should be expanded by over 10,000 men. Recruiting for the new units began in April of last year and it has gone very well. The strength of these units is now well past the halfway mark. I think that is very encouraging. I have been interested in what has been said about manpower by a number of my noble friends—among them Lord de Clifford, Lord St. Just and Lord Balerno, who, as all of us know, takes a great interest in this subject and does a great deal of work in Scotland on behalf of the Services. I note what he and the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, said about the establishment of the university air squadrons, and I acknowledge their importance. I hope that will do for the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, to-night.
My noble friend Lord Balerno asked me when Sir Clifford Jarrett's Committee would report. I am able to tell him that it will be early in 1973. Several noble Lords asked on the question of the school leaving age, whether it will be possible to recruit boys aged 15 and teach them in the Service schools. That is an attractive suggestion but one which requires careful examination because I believe there might be some difficulties with other people who may not regard this one exception as being quite so acceptable as those of your Lordships who have stayed behind to listen to the end of a Defence debate. I will undertake to examine that question.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, spoke about the United Arab Emirates, and asked whether there is an air component that the U.A.E. can call upon. The U.A.E. as such has no air component; its only force is the old Trucial Oman Scouts. The Abu Dhabi Defence Force has an air wing with Hunters and other aircraft which are available to the U.A.E. in the sense that national forces are generally available to the union. The
494
noble Lord also asked me about the organisation of the T.A.V.R. Perhaps the easiest thing to do would be to refer him to Chapter III of the last year's White Paper which describes in detail the organisation of the new force. Both he and my noble friend Lord Balerno remarked upon the title which they did not like very much they wished to revert to "Territorial Army" or "Territorial Forces". From inquiries that I have made these suggestions would not be universally popular, although they would be popular with some people. In a situation like this it is best that the idea for any change of name should come from the members of the force in the first place. Of course if they so felt I should be very willing to consider any change of name if it were the overwhelming wish of those in the T.A.V.R.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, who as I remember from his days as Civil Lord when I was at the Admiralty was always very inquisitive, asked a number of other questions. He mentioned the foreign exchange cost of B.A.O.R. and referred to the absence of comment in this White Paper on arrangements to offset the cost. As to the latter I can assure him that nothing sinister is involved. We negotiated a new 5-year agreement, the details of which were published on March 18 last year. Briefly, in addition to a cash payment of 550 million D-marks over five years, the Federal Government undertook to continue with military purchases on the lines of those in previous agreements. If you take them together these two elements represent a significant improvement on the previous arrangements that have been made. As to B.A.O.R. it is quite true that the foreign exchange costs are going up, but that is due to inflationary pressures in other countries than ours. Perhaps I could remind the noble Lord that the period he is concerned with also saw the return to B.A.O.R. of 6 Brigade which has raised the overseas expenditure.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, in one of his shorter but none the less trenchant speeches, asked about the Report of Sir Frederick Seebohm. That Committee, too, will report in early 1973. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and my

495
noble friend Lord Glasgow asked about Malta. The first time I met my noble friend was when he was Flag Officer, Malta, and I know what an interest he has in that place. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked whether there was a point of no return. I do not think so; what you take away you can always put back. Obviously the sooner an agreement is signed the less you will have taken away and the less therefore you will have to put back. I do not think there is any particular point at which one would say that it was impossible. My noble friend Lord Glasgow quoted what he thought the Maltese had picked up from us about the British. I am reminded of a rhyme—I think it was one of Flanders' and Swann's:
"The English are moral,
The English are good,
And clever and modest;
And misunderstood."
It seems to me that this in some way denotes what has been happening in Malta. I assure the House and my noble friends that we in this country believe that the offer that has been made to the Maltese Government is fair and just, and there is, as there always has been, enormous good will in this country for the Maltese. We hope very much that it will be possible, even at this late stage, to sign an agreement with them.
My Lords, I am conscious that I have not answered every point, but I have done my best. I shall certainly look through the debate, read it again and answer any noble Lord whose questions I have not answered. I end by thanking those of your Lordships who have taken part in the
debate and by saying that even

(1) Following are the main assessments for benefits directly administered by Central Government departments:—

A. STATUTORY ASSESSMENTS:

ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL
SECURITY

Availability

Type of Test (See Note
2)

1. Supplementary Benefits

Persons aged 16 or over who are not in
remunerative full-time work whose incomes are
less than their requirements as statutorily
defined.

Assessment of resources.

2. Free Welfare Foods (milk and
vitamins).

Children under school age and expectant and
nursing mothers assessed as needing help on
grounds of low income, including recipients of
supplementary benefit and family income
supplement.

Assessment of resources.

if your Lordships are dissatisfied with me, I am not too dissatisfied with the way in which your Lordships have received this White Paper.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

  STATE BENEFITS AND TESTS OF ELIGIBILITY
  STATE BENEFITS AND TESTS OF ELIGIBILITY