Sitting of 8 March 1972

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

    Road Haulage (Tachographs)
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how he proposes to explain the provisions of the European Communities Bill about drivers' hours and tachographs to employers and unions in the roal haulage industry.
    The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): By normal consultation and publicity.
    Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful for that answer, but I am afraid I know what it means. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a great deal of concern in the trade union movement about the foisting of this measuring device upon the industry and that it would have been far better if it had been introduced on a voluntary rather than a compulsory basis? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be the widest possible consultation, particularly with the Transport and General Workers Union, before the specifications for installation of the tachograph are drawn up?
    Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir, there will be very full consultation. I have already met members of various trade unions on the subject on a number of occasions, and only this week I have had a talk with Mr. Jack Jones.

    Public Amenities
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether
    1418
    he will introduce a policy of special grants for the improvement of public amenities especially in areas of high unemployment.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I recently announced new arrangements for grants to assist local authorities in development, intermediate and derelict land clearance areas in dealing with neglected and unsightly land in their areas. The aim is to create new employment and at the same time to improve the amenities of the areas concerned.
    Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. That is indeed a step in the right direction, but a great deal more could be done. There are many areas where improvements are needed in the arts, crafts and parks; all kinds of things are needed to bring our environment up to scratch. Would not this be an opportunity, particularly in areas of high unemployment, for the right hon. Gentleman to spend public money in the most fruitful cause, simultaneously improving the amenities of an area and providing useful employment for the people?
    Mr. Walker: There has been a massive increase in activity in this sphere. Not only are there improvement grants for houses and grants under Operation Eyesore but there is a considerable increase in loan sanction for local authorities for other schemes. But I agree with the principle outlined by the hon. Gentleman.

    Noise Advisory Council
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times in 1971 the Noise Advisory Council met; on how many occasions he chaired the meeting; and what recommendations the council made.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Four meetings of the full council, two of which I chaired, and two of which another Minister of my Department chaired, and 24 meetings of sub-groups were held in 1971. The council compiled and approved reports on "Neighbourhood Noise", "Flight Routeing Near Airports", "The Enforcement of Vehicle Noise Regulations" and the Noise and Number Index. It also advised on standards for noise nuisance from major urban roads.
    Mr. Steel: What is the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to the report of the working party on neighbourhood noise, and particularly its proposals for a new Noise Abatement Act?
    Mr. Walker: I very much agree with the principle of its proposals. We have had the advice of the Noise Advisory Council on preparing draft legislation for a new Noise Abatement Act.

    River Yare
    Mr. John E. B. Hillasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions there have been for breaches of the speed limits on the River Yare in Norfolk in the last three years; and with what result.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): This is not a matter for which my right hon. Friend is responsible. I suggest that my hon. Friend gets in touch with the Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Commissioners, the navigation authority concerned.
    Mr. Hill: I am grateful for that suggestion, but does not my hon. Friend accept that his Department has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that careless or dangerous navigation does not inflict damage upon river banks and walls especially where these afford the sole and often precarious protection to the adjacent farmland, which is often at a much lower level than the tidal river waters?
    Mr. Griffiths: I agree with my hon. Friend to this extent, that it demonstrates the need to put all the authorities concerned with water under the same umbrella, as is proposed in my right hon. Friend's suggestions for the water industry
    Dr. Stuttafordasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if the height of any new bridge over the river between Yarmouth and the Port of Norwich will allow the river to take the same size ships as hitherto.
    The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): Any proposals for new bridges between Great Yarmouth and Norwich would be advertised in accordance with the statutory requirements, which also provide
    1420
    that any objections could be the subject of a public inquiry.
    Dr. Stuttaford: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Port of Norwich is still very busy and that we should like to see any bridge over the River Yare high enough to enable ships to go beneath it or should like it to be a swing-bridge?
    Mr. Page: There have been discussions between the harbour authority and the Norfolk and Norwich joint structure plans team on the future of the Port of Norwich. The harbour authority's view, which is that Norwich's port activities cannot be transferred anywhere else, has been accepted by the team.
    Mr. Fell: I thank my hon. Friend for his very good answer. May I say in passing how grateful I would have been had my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) informed me that he was about to ask a question about my constituency?
    Dr. Stuttaford: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say to my hon. Friend that it has nothing to do with his constituency?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

    Driving Licences
    Miss Joan Hallasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider issuing a driving licence and making it proof against abuses by providing the holder's particulars as in the passport, including a photograph.
    Mr. Peyton: No, Sir. I am not satisfied that such an extra requirement would be justified.
    Miss Hall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Incidentally I am "Madam", not "Sir". My hon. Friend replied "No, Sir". [Interruption.] Oh, I see; he was addressing me through the Chair. My suggestion was not ridiculous because there are quite a number of abuses through forgery of driving licences. Last year there were 2,256 findings of guilt. It would save a great deal of abuse of the driving licence if a photograph were attached.
    Mr. Peyton: Well, Sir, I have given my hon. Friend's suggestion very careful

    1421
    thought. I still do not believe that it would be justified. Even the prospect that some licences, like my hon. Friend's, would become more decorative would not justify it.
    Mr. Lipton: Would it not to make the licence holder fingerprints on his licence?
    Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman has some funny friends.

    Railway Land (Planning Applications)
    Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will issue a circular to local authorities redefining the distinction between operational and non-operational railway land in the consideration of planning applications.
    Mr. Peyton: The distinction is of long standing and generally well understood. It would not be appropriate to analyse it in detail, because disputed cases can be referred to me for settlement.
    Mr. Hunt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some confusion on this point in Bromley, particularly about the activities of Amalgamated Road-stone at Chislehurst goods yard, and that many of my constituents are objecting to the intolerable noise and nuisance but that repeated representations by them have been met with evasion by Bromley Council and with apparent indifference from my right hon. Friend's Department? Will he undertake to investigate the situation to ascertain how this company is operating on non-operational land without planning permission?
    Mr. Peyton: I can assure my hon. Friend that my Department is never indifferent to problems which worry him, but in these cases the local authorities have power to serve a discontinuance notice and this they should do. If my hon. Friend thinks that the good offices of my Department could help in some way, I hope he will let me know. I shall be glad to help if I can.

    Foulness
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a further statement on his estimate of the costs of the Foulness Airport project.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I cannot yet add anything to the answer I gave my hon. Friend on 16th February.—[Vol. 831, c. 392.]
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his remarks on 16th February about the Brancker Memorial Lecture by the Chairman of British Caledonian when my right hon. Friend said that the Chairman of British Caledonian Airways had an interest and therefore implicitly discounted suggestions made by him? Surely what the chairman was saying was that when up to £1,000 million of public money was being invested, one had to look at the full ramifications of the issue, including future technological developments in aero engineering.
    Mr. Walker: I agree that it is right to look at all the implications of the project. We have done so, and we are proceeding with Maplin.
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the exploitation of the Foulness area since 2nd February, 1972.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I have received various representations from public and private interests and from a few hon. Members.
    Mr. Douglas: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that he has received one specific representation indicating that development of Foulness should go far beyond the type of development set out in the statement of 2nd February? If he is really looking for port development in the United Kingdom will he cast his eyes much further north, to Hunterston, where there would be no need to dredge and where the establishment of a Europort would be of the greatest assistance to the area?
    Mr. Walker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I completely adhere to the statement I made on this matter and have no intention of allowing primary industrial development to take place.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Would my right hon. Friend agree that quite the most important representations lie is likely to have received are from my constituents who will be affected by the whole project?

    1423
    Will he take this opportunity of giving an indication of when detailed proposals as to the location of the runways, the access routes and the new urbanisation are likely to be made public so that our people can know how they are to be affected?
    Mr. Walker: I cannot give that information but I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall very soon make available to local authorities, amenity organisations and others concerned not the siting of the runways but the factors that we will be taking into consideration in coming to a conclusion, so that they can make their observations.
    Mr. Crosland: While I still hope that Foulness will not go ahead, if it goes ahead will the right hon. Gentleman clear up one misunderstanding? Is it not the case that Professor Buchanan in his minority report on the Roskill Commission, although in favour of Foulness, was not in favour of a huge industrial complex on regional planning grounds and the grounds of the general overcrowding of South-East Essex? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the statement he made on, I think, 13th February limiting the likely industrial and port development is broadly within the kind of limitations that Professor Buchanan had in mind?
    Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot speak for Professor Buchanan without consulting him on this topic but I can assure him that I have endeavoured to interpret Professor Buchanan's view in not allowing a massive development at Maplin which would be very bad on regional policy grounds.

    Local Government Reorganisation
    Miss Lestorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what sociological survey was carried out by his Department to study the effect on communities of the proposed local government reorganisation.
    Mr. Graham Page: The Government's proposals took account not only of the research work undertaken for the Redcliffe-Maud Royal Commission, but also the accumulated knowledge of conditions throughout the country available in Departments generally and derived
    1424
    from their responsibilities in connection with a great variety of central and local services.
    Miss Lestor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Would he apply those remarks to the Britwell G.L.C. Estate which at the moment is shared between myself and the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell)? This causes enough difficulties now but at least it is under one county authority. The proposal under the proposed local government reorganisation is to split it down the middle and to put it under two authorities. The effect of this on education and welfare services will be disastrous. Can this matter be looked at again?
    Mr. Page: Yes, I am well aware of the problem. The difficulty in dealing with this matter in the Local Government Bill at present is that the estate is split by a parish boundary. We would prefer to leave it to the Boundary Commission. I give the hon. Lady the undertaking that I shall give a direction to the Boundary Commission to deal with this matter as soon as possible.
    Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that when plebiscites are held in areas which are shown to be firmly in favour of changes which are not in the Bill at present, the Government will take them seriously?
    Mr. Page: It depends on how the plebiscites are taken and what questions are asked.

    Waterways
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what his plans are for the improvement of Great Britain's inland waterways.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The proposed reorganisation of the inland waterways will contribute considerably to the desired improvement.
    Mr. Whitehead: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the proposed break-up of the British Waterways Board will make it far more difficult to have a regional policy for the renovation and maintenance of our canals? Will he give an assurance to the House that we shall preserve the present route network of the canals? Will he not announce

    1425
    urgent plans for advancing public funds for the renovation of canals in, for example, Derbyshire where we have both derelict canals and high unemployment?
    Mr. Walker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that under the new proposals more money will be spent on new canals than before. [Interruption.] I do not know what would happen under any other government, but I assure hon. Members opposite that under the present Government more money will be spent on this matter. In regard to the maintenance of navigability in the existing canal system, regional water authorities will have precisely the same legal obligations as the British Waterways Board to keep commercial and cruising canals navigable. We intend to see that in the Statute concerned proper obligations will be put on all involved to maintain a proper navigable system.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: May I assure my right hon. Friend that his reply will give great satisfaction to many people who have been worried about the amenity aspect, particularly boat users and anglers. Boat users number scores of thousands and there are probably over 1 million anglers who are concerned about this problem. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will go even further and do something to assist those areas which are now derelict.
    Mr. Walker: I accept the tenor of my right hon. Friend's remarks. The proposals which we are suggesting will give better facilities all the way round. It is a recognition of the immense amenity value of the canal system.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the real test is whether he is prepared to give urgency to the repair of the Bridgwater Canal which has been out of action for a very long time? This has meant that it cannot be used by local people. Would not the right hon. Gentleman also agree that, because of delay in repairing this canal, the possibility of earning foreign currency is denied?
    Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for illustrating that the present system is not perfect.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the press-
    1426
    ing needs is for transferring water from west to east? Cannot the canal system be used for this purpose?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his proposals for the breaking-up of the canal system are being universally condemned by every organisation and of the disgraceful fact that the proposals were introduced without any consultation? Is he also aware that at the conference the other day which was chaired by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State there was complete hostility to the Government's proposals, except from two representatives from the river boards who are likely to be beneficiaries? Why is the Secretary of State at this late stage, again without consulting the British Waterways Board, appointing what his Under-Secretary is pleased to call a canal adviser? Is the Secretary of State—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough. We cannot have a debate.
    Mr. Walker: The document I published was a consultative document. Secondly, I am convinced that the results of our measures will do a great deal to maintain our canal facilities. I am willing to be judged on results and not on false propaganda which has been put about on this subject.
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek powers to create a statutory right of navigation on British waterways.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: This will be considered in the light of present consultations about the Government's proposals for water and sewerage reorganisation.
    Mr. Montgomery: Is my hon. Friend aware that before the General Election we gave a firm pledge on this issue? For the sake of the people who are interested in using the canals, may I ask when this pledge will be implemented?
    Mr. Griffiths: The Government have this matter in mind. So far there is no evidence of waterways users suffering practical difficulties because of the changes in the 1968 Act.

    Compensation Code
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the terms of reference governing the review of the compensation code now in hand; and when he expects that the review will be completed.
    Mr. Graham Page: We are carrying out our General Election manifesto promise to review and improve the machinery of compensation to see that it is fair and just to those whose property is compulsorily purchased or adversely affected or blighted by road and development schemes. We have promised to make a statement when the review is completed.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many instances in my constituency and in other parts of London where the local borough council is able to pay only £500 or £600 under a compulsory purchase order for properties on which there are outstanding mortgages of £2,000 or £3,000? Is it not time to make an urgent review of the Housing Act, 1969, to remove these cases of cruel hardship?
    Mr. Page: It is inconceivable that the legislation which we shall propose will not deal with that type of case.
    Mr. McCrindle: Will my hon. Friend take note that there is widespread feeling that considerable injustice results from the present situation? Will he do all he can to speed up the review, with the idea of presenting comprehensive proposals as soon as possible in the interests of the public authorities and the individuals concerned?
    Mr. Page: Yes indeed. As many of these cases arise out of the building of motorways, I am anxious to have the report of the Urban Motorways Committee so that this may be combined with our schemes for compensation.

    Central Housing Advisory Committee
    Mr. Costainasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now make a statement on the future of the Central Housing Advisory Committee.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): The com-
    1428
    mittee discussed its functions and future work on 26th April, 1971. It was agreed then that future meetings would be called as necessary to deal with specific housing matters as they arose.
    Mr. Costain: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the greatest housing problems arise from the non-availability of land? There are many eminent men on the committee, and does not my right hon. Friend think that they could be used more profitably if the Committee were given the task of finding more land for house building?
    Mr. Amery: This is one of the issues which could be usefully discussed by the committee. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion.
    Mr. Freeson: Why has the Minister, in chairing the committee, persuaded it to meet as and when necessary instead of at regular intervals, I think from four to six times a year, as it has done until now?
    Mr. Amery: I find the committee extremely helpful to me as a sounding board and for the discussion of problems such as the fair deal on rents and the report of the Francis Committee. I am anxious to have the committee available to discuss these issues as they arise. My hon. Friend's suggestion that the committee might have a contribution to make on land availability is one which I propose to pursue.

    Lorry Parks
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for assisting the provision of lorry parks in the Southampton area.
    Mr. Peyton: Southampton is one of the areas being considered by the regional study groups which have been set up to select sites for the national network of lorry parks. I expect to receive their proposals fairly soon.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that large lorries, including container lorries, park all night and every night in residential areas in Southampton, causing annoyance to residents, particularly when the lorries are started up in the early hours of the morning? Will he do everything possible to speed up the provision of lorry parks in that area?>
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: That problem is not confined to Southampton.
    Mr. Peyton: It is because we are aware of the undoubted nuisance to which the hon. Gentleman refers that we have embarked on a policy of providing a comprehensive lorry park network over the country which we hope will be completed within the next five to seven years.
    Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many lorry parks in Southampton which are not used, for the simple reason that lorry drivers wish to leave their lorries near to the guest house in which they are staying or near their own homes, and consequently they park on the housing estates? There are adequate parking facilities in Southampton.
    Mr. Peyton: That is an aspect of the matter which will be borne in mind.

    Land Prices
    Mr. H. Boardmanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the effect on land prices generally of sale of land by auction.
    Mr. Graham Page: It is not possible to assess the difference, if any, which auction sales make to the price of land generally.
    Mr. Boardman: Is the Minister aware that the escalation of land prices at auction sales is probably greater than the escalation of prices of works of art? Will he consider a fair and practicable alternative to auction sales of land and ban such auctions?
    Mr. Page: I do not think it would be possible to ban auction sales. It is the rare, exceptional auction which gets publicity about the increase in the price of land, but there is nothing to prove that auction sales generally increase the price of land.
    Mr. Willeyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a further statement on the action he is taking to reduce land prices.
    Mr. Graham Page: I would refer the right hon. Member to the answer which I gave him on 16th February. Land prices are related to the supply of land for development in particular locations and
    1430
    I will announce further initiatives when I have the results from the measures we have already taken to deal with the specific problems of areas of shortage.—[Vol. 831, c. 407–9.]
    Mr. Wiley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that according to figures published by his Department land prices were stable for the last 12 months of the Land Commission and during the last six months land prices were falling? Is he further aware that the same figures show that in the 12 months following the abolition of the Land Commission land prices have risen by 22 points? We all know that since then the increase has been steeper still. In view of this was it not absolutely scandalous to abolish betterment levy?
    Mr. Page: The last six months of the Land Commission were the last six months of the previous Government. During that period the demand for houses dropped enormously. There was a complete slump in house building. The price went up because the demand increased during the first six months of the present Government.
    Mr. James Hill: I am sure that my hon. Friend would like a constructive suggestion on this problem. Is it not true that most of the large developers stockpile land? Might it not be an advantage if planning authorities could do some long-term planning releases, thereby allowing developers not to sterilise and hoard land beyond their requirements?
    Mr. Page: It is with this in view that conferences have been called under our regional controllers with developers, land owners and builders to see where the difficulties are and to identify them in terms of land availability. These conferences are having very good results.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the price of land is now a great national scandal and that it was almost exactly two years ago that the Secretary of State promised to release more land and bring down the price? Is there the remotest possibility of that happening and, if so, when?
    Mr. Page: Yes. As a result of circular 10/70 there are some interesting comprehensive development schemes coming forward. There is surplus land from

    1431
    the nationalised industries, especially British Railways, which has been brought forward. There are forms of partnership being investigated between local authorities, developers and landowners. There is the Action Group on London Housing. Through all these activities more land is coming forward. But the demand for it in certain areas as a result of the increased demand for housing under this Government is enormous.
    Mr. Wiley: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answers, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Farm Tractors (Road Tests)
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for the Environment why a farm tractor, though it is allowed to travel on roadways, is not subjected to the Ministry of Transport tests.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Their use on roads is too limited to warrant it.
    Mr. Wainwright: Will the Minister treat this matter more seriously? Is he not aware that far too many fatal accidents are caused by farm tractors? Does he not agree that farm tractors should be properly maintained so that lives are not lost in this way?
    Mr. Griffiths: I do not yield to the hon. Gentleman in my concern for road safety. The two most recent surveys by our Road Safety Unit showed that only one-fifth of 1 per cent, of accidents within the areas covered involved farm tractors.
    Mr. John E. B. Hill: Is not only a small and probably insignificant fraction of that proportion of accidents due to the mechanical condition of farm tractors, and is it not in general true that farm tractors are better maintained than the average motor car?
    Mr. Griffiths: It is most certainly the case that only a small proportion of accidents with farm tractors involves factors of mechanical safety. I say to the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) that if farm tractors were to be required to go on to the highways in order to reach the testing stations, there would be more farm traffic on the highways rather than less.
    Mr. Ewing: Does the Minister accept, on the broad general principle raised by my hon. Friend's question, that there is need for a review of the whole Ministry of Transport testing system? In that review, which has been promised, will the Minister give consideration to a wider use of Government centres for the testing of vehicles?
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir.

    Housing Land (Bournemouth and Christchurch)
    Mr. Cordleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what requests he has received from Bournemouth and Christchurch for his approval to the early release of more green belt land for residential development; and if, in view of the present levels of land prices in the area, he will approve them.
    Mr. Graham Page: No such request has yet been received by my right hon. Friend; but he will take both current land needs and green belt policy into account when considering any proposals which come before him to release sites for housing.
    Mr. Cordle: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the Borough of Christchurch the areas within the proposed Hampshire Green Belt which the Minister in 1961 agreed were of no value to the green belt should now be released from their restrictions?
    Mr. Page: It is for the local planning authority in the first instance to consider whether the land should now be released for development. My right hon. Friend will consider on their merits any proposals to this end which are put before him. I shall be arranging local conferences of local authorities, landowners, developers and builders to consider the land availability problem in the South Hampshire area from Poole to Portsmouth.

    Fair Rents (Assessment)
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average cost of determining the fair rent of a dwelling in the private sector at the present time; and what is his estimate of the total cost of determining the fair rents of all council houses in England

    1433
    and Wales on the basis that local authorities and the proposed rent scrutiny boards are able to make the necessary arrangements and decisions at half the cost currently applying for determinations in the private sector.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): On the first part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 21st February. On the second part, I do not think it profitable to make financial estimates on the basis of an assumption I cannot share.—[Vol. 831, c. 221.]
    Mr. Hardy: Is it not clear that, in addition to the extremely high and inflationary consequences of the application of fair rents to the public sector, there will be a heavy burden of administrative charges? How does that fit in with the Government's frequent pledges that prices will be reduced and public expenditure cut?
    Mr. Channon: There is a later Question on the Paper on that specific matter, but I do not accept the assumptions in the supplementary question nor in the original Question.
    Mr. Waddington: I am grateful for not being a Member of the Standing Committee on the Housing Finance Bill. Will my hon. Friend explain to me why the Opposition say when Labour is in power that the concept of fair rents is fair but that it has become unfair now that the Conservatives are in power?
    Mr. Channon: I assure my hon. and learned Friend that many hon. Members would be prepared to give up their place for him in the Committee on the Housing Finance Bill. We have been trying to find out the answer to the question he has asked but, although the Committee's proceedings have been of inordinate length, we have not yet had an answer.
    Mr. Leonard: If the Under-Secretary of State does not accept my hon. Friend's assumptions about the cost of assessing fair rents, what estimate does he make of the cost of assessing them, and why should the cost be met by local authorities and not by the Government when the Government are imposing this policy on local authorities against their will?
    Mr. Channon: No doubt the hon. Gentleman, after innumerable sittings of the Committee, has taken time to read the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, which answers his question.

    Site Clearance (Ayrshire)
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is now taking to ensure that contractors appointed by Her Majesty's Government to demolish and clear prefabricated housing sites in South Ayrshire leave the sites in a condition which is not an eyesore.
    Mr. Channon: The problems my right hon. Friend mentioned in reply to the hon. Member's Question on 9th June, 1971, remain and enforcement continues to be difficult. If the hon. Member has a particular eyesore in mind and lets me know, we will do what we can to clear it quick ly.—[Vol. 818, c. 334.]
    Mr. Sillars: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that almost every site in my constituency which has been clear of prefabs is a shambles because of a lack of concern on the part of the contractors, who on occasions have left conditions which are dangerous to children? Is it not essential for the Minister to introduce a follow-up procedure within his Department to ensure that cleared sites are respectable and safe?
    Mr. Channon: I will certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman says. I have very great sympathy with him and his constituents in the difficult conditions which they are obviously experiencing. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there will be a transfer of responsibility for this operation to the local authority and perhaps he will find that more satisfactory.

    Railways (Increased Use)
    Sir Gilbert Longdenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now issue a general direction to British Rail to seek to increase the use of the railways for transporting passengers and freight; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.
    Sir Gilbert Longden: I hope I shall get more satisfaction from my right hon. Friend's supplementary answer than I

    1435
    received from that answer. At a time when our roads are becoming more and more crowded, when we are told that the number of motor cars will double in 10 years and when the roads are made hideous and dangerous by freight traffic transported by heavy lorries, is it not sheer folly to fail to make as much use as we can of the iron roads which we already have?
    Mr. Peyton: It is always my wish to avoid being unhelpful to my hon. Friend. I would not wish to encourage the railways into carrying more traffic which they do not want to carry and which is uneconomical for them. On the whole it is the block train load which is the most suitable traffic for the railways. I regard this as a matter of management and not one appropriate for a general directive.
    Mr. David Stoddart: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his hon. Friend is absolutely right in putting forward the traffic difficulties which are being experienced, and does he appreciate that for the improvement of the environment it will be necessary for the railways to carry more traffic? Will he consider taking over the signalling and track costs of the railways and making grants to private firms for private sidings which would encourage them to send goods by rail instead of road?
    Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman calls attention, as if it were necessary, to the fact that my hon. Friend is normally right. On the other hand, it is for me to point out that there are difficulties, including adding to the uneconomic traffic which the railways carry. I do not wish to do that because I think it would be a wrong policy.

    Empty Council Housing
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses and flats, including new ones, have been empty for the past six months or more.
    Mr. Channon: Local authorities are not required to keep my right hon. Friend informed of the numbers of their vacant dwellings and I am not in a position to make national estimates.
    Mr. Duffy: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that local authorities should
    1436
    be so required? Is he not aware that a recent survey disclosed that there were 10,000 or more such houses at a time when Shelter estimated unofficially that there were more than 100,000 homeless families? Does not this suggest a state of affairs, as has been alleged, of anomalies, confusion, and miscalculation by Whitehall and to a lesser extent by local authorities with huge sums of public money being wasted?
    Mr. Channon: I will certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that local authorities should be required to keep my right hon. Friend informed. As he knows, it is for the local authorities to assess the needs in their neighbourhood. I hope that he will keep a close eye on what Sheffield is doing.
    Mr. Allason: Will my hon. Friend take note of the demand from the Opposition side of the House that there should be less council building?
    Mr. Channon: I was very surprised at the hon. Member's question and I note what my hon. Friend says.

    Housing Aid Centres
    Mr. Allasonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made in the establishment of housing aid centres.
    Mr. Amery: According to my latest information 14 local authorities have so far set up housing aid centres or are in other ways offering advisory services of the kind that such centres can provide. A number of other authorities have similar schemes on the stocks. Some voluntary organisations are also active in this field.
    Mr. Allason: While I welcome the progress in the provision of this new service may I ask whether my right hon. Friend does not feel that this should be a nation-wide service in view of the many people throughout the country, especially young married couples, who are in need of accommodation? In particular is it not more necessary now in view of the new hope for the homeless raised by the introduction of rent allowances through the Housing Finance Bill?
    Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have considered whether we should have a statutory requirement for local authorities to provide

    1437
    centres of this kind but the need for housing or for advisory services will vary from area to area according to local circumstances. I thought it better to leave it to the local authorities to devise the best means they can achieve.
    Mrs. Renée Short: What advice would such a housing aid centre, if established in Hemel Hempstead, give to sitting tenants of the development corporation who wish to buy their houses and who are now being refused permission by the corporation?
    Mr. Amery: Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to put down a separate Question dealing with that.
    Mr. Freeson: Out of the 14 authorities to which the Minister has referred, can he tell us how many have established centres as distinct from those offering advisory services of a more general kind?
    Mr. Amery: I wrote to 15 London boroughs with special housing stress last April. Of that number three have opened centres, eight have firm proposals for doing so and one tells me that it is giving the matter serious consideration.

    Photochemical Smog
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment in how many areas of the United Kingdom has photochemical smog occurred; whether tests have been made in the St. Helens area of Lancashire; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Only the Atomic Energy Research establishment at Harwell makes systematic tests for photochemical smog. I have summarised the present position in a statement which, since it is lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Dr. John Reay, head of the Government Pollution Laboratories, has made a recent report about photochemical smog found in the South of the country and that he reports that it has reached danger levels on several occasions? I want to know whether tests have been taken in the industrial North or North-West to ascertain the levels of air pollution in towns like St. Helens. Will the hon. Gentleman urge his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to do
    1438
    all in his power to reduce the danger of pollution by the greater use of railways in transferring the great heavy loads from our roads to the railways?
    Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has managed to put several questions into one. The answer to his point about the railways has been given already. As for monitoring of the air, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that those measures which are necessary are being taken.
    Mr. Spriggs: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Following is the information:
    Low degrees of various photochemical reactions occur in the atmosphere through the operation of sunlight on natural constituents. These reactions are intensified when man-made pollutants are present and the concentration of oxidants, principally ozone, is an indicator of the intensity. A high concentration of motor vehicle exhaust gases in strong sunlight tends to produce relatively high local levels of oxidants. In the U.S.A., levels in excess of 10 parts per 100 million have been considered evidence of photochemical smog formation, but the causation is not direct and the occurrence of such a level is by no means always accompanied by haze or reduced visibility.
    On two days during July, 1971, scientists of the Atomic Energy Research Establishment measured ground-level concentrations of photochemically produced ozone at Harwell slightly exceeding 10 parts per 100 million. However, no occurrence in the United Kingdom of anything that might be termed photochemical smog has yet been reported to me. As urban air continues to become cleaner and sunlight penetrates more strongly, photochemical reactions may need closer attention. Research is continuing and I shall be watching the position closely.

    Council Rents
    Mr. Marksasked the Secretary of State for the Environment for which housing authorities his Department has made estimates of the likely average increase in rent of council house tenants under the Housing Finance Bill; and if he will publish details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Amery: I gave details of such estimates in Standing Committee E on 8th February.—[Col. 1437–8.]
    Mr. Marks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he said in his speech

    1439
    at Walsall that on the basis of his Department's estimates there will be many cases where a doubling cannot take place? What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "many" Does he mean more than one-half, more than one-quarter, 1 million or 2 million? Has his Department made estimates of the probable rent increases for the country as a whole. If it has, why will not the right hon. Gentleman tell us?
    Mr. Amery: As I said in my original reply, I gave some figures to Standing Committee E. If the hon. Gentleman studies them, he will see that in no case is there any likelihood of a doubling on the first determination of fair rents. The scaremongering campaign which the Opposition have tried to develop on this theme is the result of a document improperly received—stolen goods—by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). On the strength of it, the hon. Gentleman has sought to erect a whole philosophy of doubling when, as far as I know, there is no likelihood of this happening.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would be helpful to local authorities if as much time as possible could be given to them to work out their figures? Is my right hon. Friend aware further that a very heavy burden will be imposed on local authorities if they have to do the work with their present staffs? They would like as much time as possible so that the advantages of my right hon. Friend's Bill can be worked out properly.
    Mr. Amery: I take my hon. Friend's point. I am sure she will have seen that Newcastle-upon-Tyne has produced figures already showing that in almost every case a 50p increase would take rented dwellings over the fair rent in the first determination.
    Mr. Crosland: For all the right hon. Gentleman's evasions in Standing Committee—and we are sorry that he is not in rather better voice today—is it not absolutely clear that the increase in rents will be far, far beyond the 5 per cent. a year that the C.B.I. and the Government apparently find acceptable? In view of the fact that the Prime Minister is due tomorow to meet the T.U.C. for discussions on prices and inflation, would not it be wise at best to abandon the Bill and at least postpone its operation?
    Mr. Amery: May I express my deep appreciation to the right hon. Gentleman for his concession that, far from doubling, there is just a possibility of an increase of 5 per cent.?
    Mr. Raison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most important for the Labour Party to desist from issuing propaganda which tells council tenants that their rents will double, without making any reference to the rebates they will get?
    Mr. Amery: I agree with my hon. Friend, and we must bear in mind that there could be human tragedies resulting from people being unduly and unnecessarily alarmed by the totally irresponsible scaremongering campaign of the Opposition.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Frank Allaun.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Sock it to him.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree, as he knows very well, that the document in question was not improperly received but was given to me by a councillor, that I revealed figures which the Minister denied that he had, and that I would do it again? May I now ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will admit that the figures which he gave for some cities are for next year, 1973, and that he knows full well that his own Department has estimates for 1976 which will more than double the rents for each of the 10 regions of the country?
    Mrs. Short: Come on. Tell us.
    Mr. Amery: I am not enough of a lawyer to know for sure that the document was improperly received. Certainly it was improperly conveyed. I do not know the law governing receivers of stolen goods—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The point at issue is that, while it is just possible that my Department has made an accurate estimate of what the increase in rents in 1972–73 might be, any attempt to achieve in a working document an accurate estimate of what it will be in 1975–76 must be highly speculative. Indeed, it is clear that the estimates that we have prepared for 1972–73 in respect of Newcastle are already far in excess of what is likely to happen.
    Mr. Marks: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Buckoke and Others v. Greater London Council
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has now concluded his discussions with the relevant authorities consequent upon the decision in Buckoke and Others versus the Greater London Council; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.
    Mr. Davis: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that when the judgment of the Court of Appeal was given in this matter the most damaging criticisms were made of Parliament: that there had been tremendous delay in dealing with legislation to deal with ambulance drivers, drivers of police vehicles and of fire vehicles? There has now been a delay of more than a year since that judgment. When will the Minister do something about it?
    Mr. PeytonI think that before making a change of the kind suggested here, it is necessary to have full consultations with the motoring organisations and all those who are interested in traffic matters. This process is in hand. As soon as I receive the views of those concerned, a decision will be made.

    Housing Finance
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect he now estimates the Government's housing financial policies will have on the general policy of combating inflation.
    Mr. Amery: The reconcentration of housing subsidies on authorities and tenants who require help will substantially reduce the need for increased taxation which would have grown out of the indiscriminate subsidies apparently favoured by the hon. Member. This itself will be anti-inflationary since exacting taxation from the unwilling in order to make payments to people who do not need it is an extravagant practice.
    Mr. Allaun: Why are the Government imposing deliberate and compulsory rent
    1442
    increases of up to 25 per cent. a year when the Prime Minister has said that a 5 per cent. increase in prices is the maxi mum tolerable, particularly as the Minister is compelling local authorities to impose rent increases, when there is no need in many cases for an increase, and to make a profit out of their tenants for the first time? Will he seriously consider withdrawing the Bill?
    Mr. Amery: The increases in rents which we are proposing are not, in practice, much higher than those which the previous Government—[Interruption.]—at the height of their deflationary policy allowed when they proposed, in 1969, that, without the need for ministerial approval, increases of 37½p might be made.
    Mr. Scott: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that in any presentation of the social and financial effects of the Bill due emphasis is given to the fact that, for the first time in the history of housing in this country, a rent allowance will be made available to private tenants who are in need and that whereas right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite prate about social injustice, the Tories do something about it?
    Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There will be rent allowances for the first time in our history, apart from Birmingham which has already introduced them under progressive Conservative local government, for private tenants in need. In addition, there will be rebates for all council estates—not for 60 per cent., as today. This suggests that the 50p increase which we are proposing is not out of line with the 37½,p average increase proposed by the Labour Government in 1969.
    Mr. Crosland: Is the Minister aware that we know perfectly well, as he said in his original answer, that the object of this exercise is to transfer income away from the council tenant towards the national taxpayer? We do not need that explained to us. Will he take seriously the point that it will be exceedingly difficult for the Prime Minister tomorrow, when he meets the T.U.C., to appeal to it for wage restraint at a time when this central, sensitive and critical price is likely to rise annually by any amount up to 25 per cent.?
    Mr. Amery: I find it difficult to believe that the T.U.C. would reject the idea that help should be given to those who need it most, be it in the extension of rebates to council house tenants who are not getting it today, be it in the provision for the first time of a rent allowance for private tenants or be it in the extension of more generous slum clearance subsidies for areas of stress.
    Sir T. Beamish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the satisfactory nature of the reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

    Housing Subsidy (Worksop and Retford)
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total estimated housing subsidy that will be paid to Worksop Borough Council, Worksop Rural District Council, Retford Borough Council, and Retford Rural District Council in the current financial year 1971–72.
    Mr. Channon: Housing subsidies for 1971–72, including improvement contributions, payable to the Councils in respect of dwellings owned by them, are expected to be as follows: Worksop Borough Council, £174,000: Worksop Rural District Council, £74,000; East Retford Borough Council, £36,000; and East Retford Rural District Council, £67,000.
    Mr. Ashton: As the present method of subsidy is to be changed. may I ask what advice the hon. Gentleman can give to trade unions in my constituency which are faced with having their pay demands kept down to 8 per cent. whereas rents will go up by 20 or 25 per cent. under the new legislation?
    Mr. Channon: I think that my right hon. Friend dealt with that point very satisfactorily a moment ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] One advantage of our national scheme, which I am sure has the support of the hon. Gentleman, is that it will apply to at least one of the local authorities cited by him which has no rebate scheme of any kind at the moment.

    Housing Estates (Open Spaces)
    Mr. Kenneth Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to require developers of private housing estates to maintain open spaces in those estates after completion of the development.
    Mr. Graham Page: I have no plans for such legislation. As I told my hon. Friend on 8th December, local circumstances vary considerably.—[Vol. 827, c. 306–7.]
    Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for the correspondence which I have had on the local problem which gives rise to this Question. Does he agree that there is a real problem when a local authority gives planning permission for development on condition that open spaces are maintained and the developer refuses to maintain them when he has sold the last house? Will my hon. Friend tell me who should pay for the maintenance of the grass and landscaping in the open spaces in those circumstances?
    Mr. Page: The real problem is getting the conditions worded right. The planning authority can impose conditions to provide open spaces. I know that there is difficulty in imposing responsibility for future maintenance, but there is always the possibility that a local authority can negotiate a separate agreement with the developer.

    Derelict Land
    Mr. Arthur Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of derelict land he expects will be restored in England during the current year; and approximately how much money will be spent thereon.
    Mr. Graham Page: Estimates of reclamation in England in 1972 are being collected as part of the 1971 survey and are expected to show substantial increases. Expenditure by local authorities in 1972–73 is also expected to show a corresponding increase over their expenditure in the present financial year, which it is estimated may be £5 million. It is not yet possible to quantify these increases.
    Mr. Jones: Has my hon. Friend any priorities which are applied to schemes of reclamation and improvement, and is he satisfied with the support that he is getting from local authorities?
    Mr. Page: I am satisfied that there is a massive number of schemes coming forward from local authorities. There is no question of priority. Any scheme which comes forward will not be held up by finance. We are prepared to pay grant for any reclamation schemes which local authorities put forward.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is it true that, even on the restrictive definition of derelict sites, we are still creating more dereliction than we are curing?
    Mr. Page: I hope that we shall have a new definition of derelict land in the near future. A pilot survey scheme on this matter is being carried out by four counties. I hope to bring the new definition before the House shortly, so that surveys starting in 1972 will give a more realistic picture of derelict land throughout the country.

    Civic Amenities Act, 1967
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that the Civic Amenities Act, 1967, is operating satisfactorily; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: My hon. Friend will know that the Government propose to strengthen the powers to protect conservation areas, of which 1,585 have so far been designated, by controlling the demolition of selected buildings in them and that provision to this effect is before this House; I have also proposed to introduce a new grant to help outstanding conservation areas.
    Mr. Morrison: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Are there any or many local authorities in any part of the country which are not making use of the provisions of the Act to establish conservation areas?
    Mr. Walker: Yes. I think that local authorities could do more to establish both conservation and improvement areas.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Civic Amenities Act refers to the clearance of derelict
    1446
    cars and lorries abandoned on the streets. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why some of these vehicles remain for months and, indeed, years in working class areas whereas, in salubrious areas such as Whitehall and the Mall, lorries are not allowed to park even for two or three minutes? Will he try to get these lorries and cars off the streets in working class areas?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir.

    Pollution Control
    Mr. Maddanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the total annual expenditure by central Government on all forms of pollution control.
    Mr. Peter Walker: This information is not readily available, as much of the expenditure on pollution control is incurred as an element of other expenditure, from which it cannot be separated. Local authorities and industry account for a great deal of additional outlay.
    Mr. Maddan: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is very important to know that there are enough funds for these purposes? Would he comment on the recent statements of the Royal Commission on the subject?
    Mr. Walker: There are plenty of funds available. As to the statement of the Royal Commission yesterday, in view of the suggestion therein that there have been delays in taking action in this sphere by my Department, Sir Eric Ashby has asked me to make it clear that he did not say and does not think that the Department of the Environment has been in any way dilatory in preparing legislation to deal with the problem of toxic waste disposal.
    Mr. Pavitt: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken note of the recent Stockholm Conference and its findings that, where there is a large profit in industrial complexes, there is a large amount of pollution? In the light of that, will he look to the possibility of having a survey whereby he can charge industry which makes pollution with the responsibility of clearing it up?
    Mr. Walker: I agree with that principle. That new water proposals which we

    1447
    are bringing in will mean that, in future, those that provide sewage for the river system will have to meet the cost of treating it properly.
    Mr. Emery: Would not my right hon. Friend reconsider his original reply? There is criticism that there is not enough money available from central Government for pollution control, because people do not understand how much is available and is being used. Is there not more money available than is actually being used? Would my right hon. Friend also try to ensure that the amount of money that industry is using for pollution control is quantified so as to bring the whole problem into proper perspective?
    Mr. Walker: It is difficult accurately to quantify, although estimates have been made that about £400 million has been spent by industry on clean air proposals. But a great deal of additional expenditure is required.
    Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman said that there were plenty of funds. How much?
    Mr. Walker: For example, in terms of water and sewage alone we have announced expenditure of £1,300 million over the next five years. There are many grants for clearance of derelict land and so on, and most of them are open-ended.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those of us who support his proposals were interested in his correction about Sir Eric Ashby, which is of some importance? Can he arrange for Sir Eric to make a statement about what he meant in his criticisms?
    Mr. Walker: Obviously this is up to Sir Eric Ashby, but last April the Government announced that they intended to take action within the framework of local government reform. We were consulted thereafter by the Royal Commission. Before any of the recent publicity on toxic waste, correspondence took place between myself and Sir Eric Ashby in which I made it clear that, if necessary, I would use the present Local Government Bill to take immediate action. However, due to the co-operation of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), we can do it still more speedily.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Leonard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In his Reply to Question No. 30 the Minister for Housing and Construction accused my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) of having received stolen goods. In the Standing Committee on the—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The content of the answer is not really a matter for a point of order to me.
Mr. Leonard: Is it not intolerable that a Minister, having already withdrawn the lesser epithet "purloined" in the Standing Committee, should come to the House and use a much stronger epithet? Should he not be asked to withdraw?
Mr. Speaker: What happens in a Standing Committee is not for me at all.
Mr. Heffer: It happened here.
Mr. Speaker: A Minister or an hon. Member takes responsibility for his own statements. There is nothing out of order in making an allegation of this sort. Whether it is right or wrong is nothing to do with the Chair, but it was not out of order.
The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In case it may help to remove any misunderstanding, may I point out that I withdrew the accusation that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) had purloined a document but repeated, or stated, in Committee—no doubt the hon. Member was not serving the Committee at that moment—that he had received stolen goods.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. What happens in a Standing Committee is not for me.
Hon. Members: It happened here.
Mr. Speaker: It is not for me. As I say, a right hon. or hon. Member must take his own responsibility for what he says.
Hon. Members: No!
Mr. Crosland: Further to that point of Order. Under the normal procedures of the House, Mr. Speaker, you ask, and

1449
indeed compel, hon. Members to withdraw the word "bloody", to withdraw the word "liar", to withdraw epithets of that kind. Is it not infinitely more serious than using the word 'bloody" to call someone a receiver of stolen goods?
Mr. Speaker: I did not understand that the imputation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—was of being a receiver of stolen goods in the criminal sense of the term. I did not understand that at all. But, anyhow, this is not a matter for the Chair. The Minister must take responsibility for it.
Mr. Arthur LewisFurther to the original point of order. I believe that it was within the hearing of yourself, Mr. Speaker, and certainly of hon. Members sitting here, that, in addition to making the statement which the Minister has repeated, he also mentioned "thieving". Surely it cannot be in order for a Minister to impute—
Mr. Speaker: Order. No suggestion of thieving was made in my hearing.
Mr. Clinton Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What the Minister has said categorically is that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) received stolen goods. This is not, and cannot be construed as being, representative of some civil tort. It is a clear and explicit imputation of crime. How far can an hon. Member go? Would it be right, for instance, for an hon. Member to refer to the Minister as a crook?
An hon. Member: I wish someone would "receive" him.
Mr. Speaker: As I already said, I did not understand the Minister's suggestion to be of a criminal offence on the part of another hon. Member. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to assist me on this point, that he was not making any suggestion of a criminal offence.
Mr. Amery: In response to your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, let me make it quite clear that all that I am saying is that the hon. Member received a document which should not have been made available to him, a document which was issued confidentially—
Mr. Ron Lewis: Withdraw your original remark.
Mr. Amery: —to local authority officials working with my Department. The document should not have been made available to the hon. Member. In that sense he was receiving a document improperly communicated to him.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is where the matter must rest. I call the Chairman of Ways and Means—
Hon. Members: No!
Mr. Freeson: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: No, I have called the Chairman of Ways and Means.
Mr. Freeson: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: I have called the Chairman of Ways and Means—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am not going to accept any more points of order on that point. Chairman of Ways and Means.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With permission, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Freeson: On a point of order—
Mr. Le Marchant: Name him!
The Chairman: With permission, Mr. Speaker—
Several Hon Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I will take a different point of order after the Chairman has made his statement.
Mrs. Renée Short: No, take this one.
Mr. George Cunningham rose—
Mr. Rose rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take a different point of order after the Chairman's statement.

CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS(PERSONEL STATEMENT)
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short personal statement.
On Monday evening, after the conclusion of the debate on the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) (Amendment)

1451
Order, I decided to bring into operation the provisions of Standing Order No. 36. Unfortunately, I then failed to allow the lapse of two minutes as the Standing Order requires. In the circumstances, I think that I ought then to have allowed a Division to proceed in the ordinary way. I apologise to the House for my error of judgment on this occasion.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Freeson, on a different point of order.
Mr. Freeson: I do not believe that from a parliamentary point of view the answer which the Minister has given, at your request, meets the point which the House is seeking to hear. An hon. Member has been accused of receiving stolen goods. If I may put to you—
Mr. SpeakerOrder. That is not a different point of order. This is really not a matter of order. If hon. Members have strong feelings about this matter—and I am not pronouncing on whether it is right or wrong—there are other ways of proceeding.
Mr. Rose rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to try to administer the Standing Orders. It is not always a very easy task. I have to try to prevent points of order being raised about matters which are not matters of order. I ruled that if there was any suggestion of a criminal charge being made against an hon. Member that should be withdrawn. My understanding is that that has been withdrawn. [HON. MEMBERS "No."] Is that not so?
Mr. Amery rose—
Hon. Members: Withdraw!
Mr. Speaker: Order. I should very much like the right hon. Gentleman to say "Yes" or "No".
Mr. Amery: There is no question of my having to withdraw as I never made any charge. [Interruption.] I have not made any charge—
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Say it outside the House.
Mr. Amery: —of any criminal action by the hon. Member, but, if any hon.
1452
Member thought that that was my intention, I should like to correct it and to that extent withdraw it. What I was trying to make plain—
Hon. Members: No! Sit down!
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think we had better get on. As I understood it, the right hon. Gentleman has withdrawn any suggestion that there was any allegation of a criminal charge, and there the matter must rest.
Mr. Rose: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on this point? As it is obviously unparliamentary for an hon. Member to accuse another hon. Member of a criminal offence—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a different point of order?
Mr. Rose: Perhaps if I were done the courtesy of being allowed to continue with the point of order, it might appear that that is the case. The point of order is that words were used which were indicative of an action which by any interpretation must of itself constitute a criminal offence. Whether or not it is withdrawn in the manner that has been done by the right hon. Gentleman with that qualification, if by definition the receipt of an article which is stolen is a criminal offence—which it is in law—the right hon. Gentleman must make an unqualified withdrawal and not a qualified withdrawal. I ask your ruling on that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I take the hon. Member's remarks, particularly the initial ones, to be a reflection on the Chair. If he wants to proceed on that he must table a Motion. Dr. Cunningham, on a new point of order.
Mr. George Cunningham: Given the exaggerated sanctity which this House attaches to precedents, may I ask your assistance, Mr. Speaker, in the light of something you said a few minutes ago, that if a Minister makes a remark about an hon. Member he takes responsibility for that? May I know whether, if the Minister makes a remark which you construe to be unparliamentary, that must be required to be withdrawn whether the Minister takes responsibility for it or not?
Mr. Speaker: Of course.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (TAPE RECORDERS)
Mr. Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday morning during a Standing Committee Sitting an hon. Member produced a tape recorder—
Mr. Speaker: Order. What happens in a Standing Committee cannot possibly be raised as a point of order in the House.
Mr. Gorst: On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your counsel, on a point of order, as to whether it would be admissible in this Chamber to produce a tape recorder to quote on tape from any particular passage that might have occurred?
Mr. Speaker: If that happens I shall rule upon it.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (TAPE RECORDERS)
  BILL PRESENTED
    DEPOSIT OF POISONOUS WASTE
    Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by Mr. Secretary Maudling, Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Mr. James Prior, Mr. R. Graham Page, and Mr. Eldon Griffiths presented a Bill to penalise the depositing on land of poisonous, noxious or polluting waste so as to give rise to an environmental hazard; to require the giving of notices in connection with the removal and deposit of waste; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 96].

TOURIST INDUSTRY
3.47 p.m.
Mr. Edward Milne: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise the establishment of a Ministry of Tourism with powers to lay down a code of conduct for the tourist industry and to consider and act on complaints made by holidaymakers regarding tourist facilities both in this country and in respect of travel overseas; and for matters connected therewith. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Members want to have conversations with one another, I wish they would leave the Chamber. Mr. Milne.
Mr. Milne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The Bill underlines the need for a Ministry of Tourism. Failure to grasp the opportunity to appoint such a Ministry under the Development of Tourism Act, 1969, makes this Bill not only necessary but imperative. There is no need to stress the fast growing industry which tourism is both at home and overseas. It provides work in many parts of this country where work is otherwise difficult to obtain.
By the 'seventies close on 4 million people were visiting Britain from overseas and spending over £350 million. Britons were spending holidays abroad and spending money to the extent of about £300 million. We are dealing with a growth industry in the best sense of the word. The English Tourist Board will shortly be setting up 11 regional boards which, with the boards for England and Wales, will give comprehensive national coverage for the tourist industry. We would like to see under this Bill and under a Ministry of Tourism tour operators, travel agents, hotels, restaurants and all catering establishments and rail, air, sea and coach travel connected with the industry.
There is no reason why rail, sea and coach travel in connection with tourism should necessarily remain within the control and under the jurisdiction of the present boards. In our view, the Ministry would be a watch-dog on standards of travel by railway and in other forms. It would also be able to deal with the question of conference halls in Britain, of exhibition centres and things of that kind. Even the Association of British

1455
Travel Agents has to travel overseas for its conferences. Conference halls in development areas such as Northumberland could bring much-needed work to those areas.
Under the Development of Tourism Act, 1969, the registration of hotels, boarding-houses, holiday camps and similar establishments will be put into operation in April this year. Registration will also be widened for the purposes of air travel. The Bill would make various trade bodies within the tourist industry responsible for registration of its members under the control of a national tourist board.
I come to the question of registration—it is becoming accepted as a principle that tour operators and travel agents should be registered—in relation to holiday makers. On 17th June, 1970, the Financial Times said of the approaching holiday season:
All in all, the tourist industry is in a state of flux as far as providing a consumer safety net is concerned, but there will certainly be alterations in time for the 1971 scene."
We have already dealt in this House with the 1971 scene. We are now approaching the 1972 holiday season, and many people who have booked feel that protection is necessary.
Five major tour operators in Britain account for more than half the inclusive tour market. The Association of British Travel Agents recently launched an appeal to its 340 members urging them to take part in an arbitration scheme initiated by Clarksons Holidays. In introducing the scheme to the members of A.B.T.A., its chairman paid tribute to Clarksons for initiating the idea of the scheme. I do not stake a claim in this matter, but I must point out that we put such an idea to A.B.T.A. as far back as the beginning of 1969, at which time we were told by the then chairman:
"There is no place in the administration of the Association for a complaints department."
If one can pick up converts along the way in that fashion, no cause is lost.
However, there is arbitration and arbitration. In this case people are not
1456
able to opt out of the scheme and could, therefore, lose access to county court proceedings. Initial sums of from £10 to £30 for a family of five have to be lodged before arbitration hearings can be entered into. Indeed, a member of the Institute of Arbitrators. Mr. Cedric Barclay, said:
"The whole purpose of the scheme is to avoid the adverse publicity travel agents may have suffered from in the past two to three years."
In my experience of the distributive and service trades I am convinced that the best way to avoid adverse publicity is to give the customer value for money, which is what this Bill endeavours to ensure. We have already seen the need for this as various consumer protection organisations such as the Holiday and Travel Provident Association have moved into this area, simply because of the need for registration and protection.
There is need for this Bill. It is all very well for prominent tour operators to say that of 17,000 people who went on a particular type of holiday, only 50 complained. That is all right for the majority, but not particularly comfortable for the 50. It is estimated that the number of visitors to Britain will increase to 10 million by 1975. A Ministry of Tourism and a national tourist council or board to speak for the nation are necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Milne, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Pavitt, Mr. Fernyhough, Mr. Carter-Jones, and Mr. Edelman.

TOURIST INDUSTRY
  TOURIST INDUSTRY
  Bill to authorise the establishment of a Ministry of Tourism with powers to lay down a code of conduct for the tourist industry and to consider and act on complaints made by holidaymakers regarding tourist facilities both in this country and in respect of travel overseas; and for matters connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 5th May, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 7th March.]
  [SIR ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL
    Clause 1

      SHORT TITLE AND INTERPRETATION
      Amendment No. 96 proposed [7th March], in page 2, line 5, after 'and', insert
      'subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament '—[Mr. John.]
      Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.
      3.55 p.m.
      Mr. Douglas Jay: Any non-lawyer enters with a certain amount of diffidence the tangle into which the lawyers on the Treasury Bench have got us. But as the consequences of this legislation will be binding not just on lawyers but on the public as a whole, the more widely this issue is understood the better.
      This series of Amendments attempts to introduce at least a measure of Parliamentary control into this extraordinary Bill. In yesterday's debate hon. Members described these Amendments as in part probing, and our first day's debate at least established that a great deal of probing of this Measure is highly necessary. Indeed, the more we have probed the more surprising and disturbing the nature of the Bill is revealed to be.
      Though certain factors have now been established, far more questions remain unanswered, and there are a great many more to be asked. Such progress as we were able to make yesterday in elucidating the Bill was made almost entirely without assistance from hon. Gentlemen opposite who support the Government, apart from the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster).
      It will not be lost on the general public that the Government have got no support for these provisions from their supporters on the benches opposite, except the hon. and learned Gentleman, who seems
      1458
      largely to have lost faith not merely in our legal but in our parliamentary system. If that is not the case, he can prove the point by voting for this series of Amendments.
      It is clear that the Committee should renew its attempt to get clear answers from the Ministers responsible about the meaning of the Clause in its present form and what it will mean if these Amendments are accepted. So far we have had no real answers, though I agree that there is at least one distinction between the Solicitor-General and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; the Solicitor-General tries to answer our questions, while his right hon. and learned Friend hardly even does that.
      The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spent a great deal of his time yesterday telling us that everybody has known for years that if we joined the E.E.C. we would have to mutilate our system of parliamentary Government, and, therefore, apparently it is not much good this House discussing it or even worrying about the matter any further.
      As this has been said on many occasions by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I would like him to tell us why, if Ministers knew all the time that joining the E.E.C. would mean such a sweeping curtailment of the powers and rights of this Parliament, and therefore of the electorate, they refrained from making that fact clear in the White Paper and the popular version thereof, of which they distributed millions of copies last summer.
      Ministers now tell us that it was known all along that these sweeping constitutional changes as a result of the acceptance of the treaties mentioned in the Clause would have to be made. However, the July White Paper simply said on this subject:
      "The English and Scottish legal systems will remain intact. Certain provisions of the Treaties and instruments made under them, concerned with economic, commercial and closely related matters, will be included in our laws. The common law will remain the basis of our legal system, and our courts will continue to operate as they do at present."
      That is all the public were told.
      The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): The right hon. Gentleman has quoted correctly from the White Paper. It dealt

      1459
      predominantly with the results of the negotiations—we had the benefit of the 1967 White Paper on the legal and constitutional implications, which the Leader of the Opposition, then the Prime Minister, said remained valid as late as February, 1970.
      4.0 p.m.
      Mr. Jay: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster seems incapable of giving anything other than the record to which we have just listened. But as that is apparently in order, what I am saying must be in order also. The shortened version of the White Paper, distributed in enormous numbers, merely said:
      "The English and Welsh and Scottish legal systems will continue as before, except that there will be certain changes under the treaties concerning economic and commercial matters."
      Does anyone think that this bears any resemblance to what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are saying today?
      Mr. Percy Grieve: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us where the Welsh legal system is to be found in the law books of this country?
      Mr. Jay: I am merely quoting from the White Paper. If the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot distinguish between my speech and a quotation from a Government publication, he had better keep quiet.
      If Ministers now tell us that they knew all the time that a major part of the basic legislative powers of Parliament would be taken away from us, they convict themselves, as authors of these documents distributed at public expense, of wilful mendacity. To mislead the public in this way, and to do so at the expense of the taxpayer, seems to be a particularly deplorable abuse of their responsibilities as Ministers accountable to the House of Commons.
      Mr. Rippon: It is important that the right hon. Gentleman should not mislead the Committee and the public by these wild allegations about sweeping changes in parliamentary control. Parliamentary control and our law are affected only to the extent that we have explained time after time, in debates both in the House and in Committee.
      Mr. Jay: If the Chancellor of the Duchy is now saying that there will not
      1460
      be sweeping changes as a result of the Clause—
      Mr. Eric Deakins: That is what he is saying.
      Mr. Jay: —then he is contradicting himself again. However, I hope that we shall have rather more candour from the right hon. and learned Gentleman this afternoon.
      The first still unanswered question raised by this group of Amendments is this. The Chancellor appeared to say yesterday, at any rate at one time, that even if one omitted subsection (3) of the Clause, referring to Orders in Council, a treaty entered into by any of the Communities or the United Kingdom would be automatically binding in any case on our courts by the operation of Clause 2. If that is so, what is the point and what is the effect of the references in subsection (3) to Orders in Council in the case of either the Community treaties or the United Kingdom treaties? Speaking as a non-lawyer, I do not think this has been cleared up yet. I do not see how one can be sure of the effect of this group of Amendments, which is the best that we can make to improve the Bill, unless that has been cleared up.
      Is the Chancellor saying that subsection (3) is just another hollow sham and deception of the public and that these treaties will be automatically binding whether or not future Governments trouble to issue declaratory orders or to lay affirmative orders before the House of Commons? If that is not so, what did the Chancellor mean by saying that the treaties would be binding in any case? What we want to know on this point, therefore, is what would be the legal effect of the Bill if all reference to these Orders in Council were omitted.
      If, on the other hand, Ministers maintain that there is some real and genuine safeguard in at least the second part of subsection (3)—that is, that a treaty, if I may paraphrase it, made by the United Kingdom in future should not come into force unless an affirmative Order has been approved—why on earth should this apply only to treaties made by the United Kingdom and not to treaties made by the Communities on behalf of the United Kingdom, which according to the Bill as I understand it would have an equally

      1461
      binding effect on the British public and British courts? We have had no answer to that, either.
      Surely, if Ministers have any respect left for the British constitution and the British Parliament—I suppose they claim they do—the need for parliamentary authority springs from the fact that the treaties' consequences would be binding on the British public and British courts. I see no logic, therefore, in inserting this safeguard—if it is a safeguard—for treaties made by the United Kingdom in future and omitting it for those made by the Communities. May we be given a reason for this central feature of the Clause? So far as I can find, we have been given none.
      But there are a number of other ambiguities in the language of subsections (2) and (3) which it is the duty of the Committee to probe remorselessly until we get an answer. First—this may appear a small point, but we have to be clear about what the Bill means—what is the meaning of the words in line 6 on page 2
      "with or without any of the member States"?
      To the non-lawyer, it would appear that the words
      "any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities,"
      mean exactly the same as
      "any other Treaty entered into by any of the Communities, with or without any of the member States."
      How could a Community enter into a treaty neither with nor without a member State? I presume—though even this is not altogether clear—that the word "with" in this line means as a cosignatory, and not in the normal sense in which one would make a treaty with another party. Perhaps we could at least have that confirmed and suitably made clear in the Bill, as it will also arise on other Amendments.
      Mr. Deakins: I thought that in this particular respect the Bill was perfectly clear. The comma in that line surely means that a treaty made by any of the Communities with another body could have either the member States as co-signatories or not. The reference is to a treaty made by the Communities with other bodies outside the member States, whether or not the member States, individually or collectively, are co-signatories.
      Mr. Jay: If it means that, it seems that it could equally mean that with the omission of these words. At present I am merely suggesting that perhaps the authors of the Bill could clarify what they mean.
      Next, if we may assume for the moment that the subsection has some meaning and is not merely decorative, as some of us suspect—I am using reasonably complimentary words—the Solicitor-General has not cleared up to my mind the sensc of the words "a treaty" in line 11. On the face of it, this would appear to be any treaty, whether made by the United Kingdom or the Communities, or anyone else in the past or future, with the exception only of treaties made by the United Kingdom after 22nd January, 1972. As ordinary language, it would be possible for a future Minister to declare any treaty he liked, including, as one of my hon. Friends pointed, the Treaty of Versailles or the Treaty of Utrecht, as a Community treaty, and that would be conclusive.
      It is worth reading those words to the Committee again:
      "If Her Majesty by Order in Council declares that a treaty specified in the Order is to be regarded as one of the Community Treaties as herein defined, the Order shall be conclusive that it is to be so regarded."
      The subsection states "a treaty", so there is a good deal to be cleared up there.
      The Solicitor-General said something not very audible about the words being taken in their context. But surely at the very least if what is meant here is a treaty made by the Communities or the United Kingdom within the present jurisdiction of the Communities the Bill should say that clearly and unambiguously. It is not good enough, at least by the standards of legislation to which we have been accustomed hitherto, to legislate in one sense and then for the Minister to say casually that the Bill really means something else. Unless this is some presage of the sort of legislation that we can expect in the future, I hope the point can be cleared up beyond doubt.
      The words "any other treaty" which we are attempting to amend have to be read together with subsection (4), which contains the following remarkable words:
      "(4) For purposes of subsections (2) and (3) above, 'treaty' includes any international agreement, and any protocol or annex to a treaty or international agreement."

      1463
      What exactly do these, to my mind, imprecise words mean? Are the Government saying that any exchange of letters, for instance between Trade Ministers, such as all of us who have been Trade Ministers have known, automatically becomes the law of the country because a Minister issues an order saying it is so?
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the appendix in Cmnd. 4862, part one, on page 142 it cites an exchange of letters of the 6th June, 1961, on the Central Commission for Rhine Navigation? It is certainly an international agreement as I understand it, and if the precedent of an exchange of letters on internal matters between Community countries has been accepted, we would expect what my right hon. Friend says to be so. On page 141 there is a vague phrase called "internal agreement" concerning Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya, which are Commonwealth countries, and so one would expect what my right hon. Friend says to be correct in these matters.
      Mr. Jay: We should find out the facts because if any agreement of this kind is a treaty for the purposes of the Bill and if the Government can make it the binding law of this country by issuing an Order in Council it seems an incredible infringement of our normal legislative process.
      Does an agreement under the subsection even have to be written, or could a verbal agreement become an international agreement and therefore a treaty? If I remember correctly, and I am open to correction, I believe that under the restrictive practices legislation an agreement or arrangement need not be written in order to come within the scope of that legislation. Is this so in this case? Are the Government saying that in future a verbal agreement reached between Ministers, perhaps in private for all I know, can automatically become the law? If they are not, should not this be clearly and precisely laid down in the Clause?
      Does an international agreement have to be an agreement between Ministers or between Governments? It does not say in the Clause. I can hardly believe that Ministers intend international agreements between companies or other unofficial
      1464
      authorities or even private individuals—and, heaven knows, there are such agreements—to be regarded as treaties for the purposes of the legislation. If they do not, ought we not to say so explicitly in the Bill if it is not to be thoroughly slipshod and slovenly? It is not good enough for Ministers to adopt, as they might be tempted to do, the familiar line of argument put forward by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that it does not matter what the words say or mean because obviously no future Government would interpret them in this fashion. That is not the way for the House to legislate. If the British Parliament in the 17th and 18th centuries had taken the view that it did not matter what the legislation said because all future Governments could be trusted, our constitutional development would have been very different.
      4.15 p.m.
      This is not purely an academic point. Only yesterday the E.E.C. countries reached an agreement to limit the margin of fluctuation of exchange rates, which if applied to this country would be disastrous to our economy and to our employment policies. Would this be an international agreement for the purposes of the Clause? I would have thought very diffidently as a non-lawyer that it might. If it was it would be automatically binding for this country without even the procedure of an affirmative order, or at very best, only with an affirmative order. I suppose that treaties reached by the Community, with, say, South Africa about the sale of arms, or with Spain on commercial matters, or with other countries, would be covered by the Clause. Here again we see the enormous hidden effects of the Bill which must be brought into the open before we approve it.
      The following over-riding unanswered question seems to me to remain: what is the legal position if Parliament rejects one of the affirmative Resolutions under subsection (3)? The Solicitor-General appeared to say in his soothing and corn-forting but unconvincing fashion that in that case the United Kingdom would be in breach of treaties, and he could not say what would happen next. If that is so, the supposed safeguards would not seem to be worth very much if we do not know the consequences. The whole fundamental contradiction between British

      1465
      parliamentary Government and the Communities' constitution is made vividly clear.
      But there is surely another contradiction involved in this question of what happens if Parliament rejects an affirmative Resolution. If it is within the scope of the Bill and it is the intention of the Government that Parliament can frustrate the decisions of the Community by rejecting an affirmative order, how can it be out of order in the rest of the Bill even to put down Amendments which would frustrate Community decisions because they are beyond the scope of the Bill? We should have the point cleared up even though, I agree, it involves your discretion, Sir Robert, as well as the much more reprehensible behaviour of the Government. But in this case they seem to me to be inextricably intertwined.
      Alternatively, if Ministers are saying that the rejection of one of these orders by Parliament would simply be null and void and automatically over-ridden by Community decision, directive or regulation, is it not really a farce and a sham to present this subsection to the public as some protection of parliamentary rights. We must have an answer to that before we proceed further on the Bill.
      These questions will no doubt be answered in the course of the day, but one thing has already emerged pretty plainly even to the amateur mind. Whether or not it is necessary for an Order in Council to be made to make binding a treaty entered into by the Community, it is clear that if the Bill is passed, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said yesterday, British Governments in future, apparently at the cost of an hour-and-a-half debate and a vote on an affirmative Order, can make all the obligations arising out of the new treaty binding as legislation on the British public and the British courts. That, I suppose, would include treaties such as I have mentioned, and, given that there was the affirmative order, could include a treaty made by a British Government with, say, the Soviet Union, undertaking to make this country a one-party State. It may be said that that is absurd, unthinkable and remote; but we should know when we are legislating whether that would be the effect of the Bill—
      Mr. Clinton Davis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of those treaties will necessarily impinge upon conceptions of our common law, and that there is a radical difference between the continental systems of law and our system? Has he any views on how the courts can go about reconciling those different conceptions?
      Mr. Jay: I believe that what my hon. Friend says is true, and that if all these provisions are carried out the legal changes must begin to impinge on the normal conduct of the British courts and the common law.
      But the essential point I was making was that apparently we have a proposal that, under the guise of the royal prerogative, the power to legislate should be handed back by Parliament to the Executive. For this Parliament at this stage of history to hand back to the Crown and the Executive the power of legislation which they have not exercised since the time of the Stuart kings at the latest is so extraordinary that many people will find it hard to believe that that is what the Government propose. Even with the safeguards proposed by the Government for United Kingdom treaties only, and by this group of Amendments for other treaties, that is what the Bill as drafted evidently would mean. Do Ministers attempt to deny that? If they do not, is it not obvious that they must redraft the Clause and the Bill before taking these proceedings further?
      Sir Robin TurtonWe are clearly dealing with an important part of the Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster admitted late last night that the parliamentary relationship to treaty-making was not satisfactory as the Bill was drafted. I shall come later to his suggestion as to how it should be dealt with.
      It is a good thing to remind the Committee of the present practice, and to go back to the history of the Ponsonby Rule. Mr. Ponsonby said in 1924:
      "I think … that we shall carry the general approval of the House with us if we endeavour so to adjust the practice with regard to the submission of Treaties as to give Parliament, not arbitrarily in this or that case, but completely in all cases, an opportunity for the examination, consideration and if need be the discussion of all Treaties before they reach the final stage of ratification."

      1467
      That was generally agreed when it was announced. It was not a new procedure, but it put into clear form what had been the procedure under preceding Governments. The announcement was made during a debate on the Treaty of Peace (Turkey) Bill, arising from the Lausanne Treaty. Mr. Ponsonby added:
      "… it seems to the Government necessary that the instrument in its final shape should in all cases be submitted to Parliament which ultimately is the supreme governing body of the nation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1924; Vol. 171, c. 2002–4.]
      Those two references are of interest because they show the difficulty we are in. Parliament will no longer be the supreme governing body of the nation, because in certain respects the European Commission will take over.
      There are two alternative ways of dealing with part of the problem in the two Amendments selected for discussion. I prefer the method chosen by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I believe that it is the best way, and that it is more consistent with the practices and precedents of the House than to try to deal with the problem by affirmative Resolution. But a way must be found to deal with it. I do not believe that the country generally wishes Parliament to disregard its responsibilities over treaties. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) raised the important point of what happens if Parliament disapproves but it is a minor matter compared with the right of scrutiny and discussion that this House has always had with regard to treaties.
      Late last night my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster intervened in the matter to say:
      "… clearly the committee"—
      the ad hoc committee—
      "would wish to consider the scope of Parliamentary consideration in respect of treaties as in other matters."
      I welcomed the suggestion that there should be an ad hoc committee to consider delegated legislation, but it alters the whole concept of that committee to suggest that it should do what we should be doing in a Committee of the whole House, deciding how Parliament is to be brought into the question not only of
      1468
      treaty-making but of consideration of treaties made by the Community.
      My right hon. and learned Friend and I may disagree about the advantages or disadvantages of entry into the Community, but the Amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend would be beneficial to him. It would strengthen the Bill and not weaken it. If he cannot accept it, I ask him to give a clear undertaking that the Report stage will not begin until there has been a report from the ad hoc committee dealing with this specific point, which is vital to the whole of parliamentary consideration of treaties.
      I should like to clear up one point on Amendment No. 96. It has been said that if the consideration of a treaty was carried out by the affirmative Resolution procedure there would be only a 1½-hour debate. I think that hon. Members who suggest that are in error. Standing Orders Nos. 3 and 4 lay it down clearly. Standing Order No. 3 says that such proceedings shall terminate at half-past eleven o'clock
      "Provided that, if Mr. Speaker shall be of opinion that, because of the importance of the subject matter of the motion, the time for debate has not been adequate, he shall, instead of putting the question aforesaid, interrupt the business, and the debate shall stand adjourned till the next sitting (other than a Friday)".
      Standing Order No. 4 is to similar effect. Therefore to take the example given by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, if there were legislation to deal with a treaty to make the United Kingdom a one-party State, Mr. Speaker clearly would not allow the debate to be finished in 1½ hours but would use that Standing Order to allow it to go on on another day. I think everybody would regard that as the duty of Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Neil Marten: It is only nuts and bolts.
      4.30 p.m.
      Sir R. Turton: It may be only nuts and bolts. I do not want to keep the House very long, but I want to try, if I can, to put this position as I see it and ask my right hon. and learned Friend if I am right in my construction.
      Let me consider the position of sugar, which concerns a great many of us. As I see it, in the treaties we have got it is quite clear what is the position regarding sugar during the transitional position until the end of 1974. Presumably at the end

      1469
      of 1974 or before that the Community will conclude with those territories that are associated territories engaged in the production of sugar a treaty to deal with the post-Commonwealth Sugar Agreement period. That, under Article 113, will presumably be dealt with by the Commission and the Council of Ministers.
      What discussion will there be in this House on such a treaty as the Bill is now drafted? I am quite certain that hon. Members on all sides would like to have a discussion on the position, especially as it affects the Caribbean in the post-1974 period. This is the answer we had from my right hon. and learned Friend, and I am sure that on reflection he will think it not entirely satisfactory:
      "Under the treaty the agreement [in Article 113] has to be concluded by the Council acting on a qualified majority. I am told, however, that all agreements so far concluded have been agreed by unanimity."
      He was implying that, after all, there would be no agreement unless everybody was unanimous. That is far from the case. It might well be that we might be the odd man out, and I think, knowing the pledges which my right hon. and learned Friend and the Prime Minister have given to the Caribbean countries, that we probably would be if the post-1974 treaty on sugar is not satisfactory to the Caribbean countries. If my right hon. and learned Friend says that agreement has always been unanimous so far, ought he not in the course of negotiations to have said that we would join only if Article 113 was altered by protocol so that it said "by unanimous agreement" and not "by a qualified majority"? I should like my right hon. and learned Friend, or whoever is replying, to say whether I have construed this correctly.
      To me this is the kind of treaty that Parliament would like to discuss, if possible before ratification; but if it is a Community one that may be very difficult. I should have thought this to be the kind of problem that the Amendment of my right hon. Friend—Amendment No. 81—is really designed to deal with. I hope, therefore, that we shall embark on this not merely by a savage cut and thrust between those who are pro and those who are anti but as people who are dedicated to trying to improve parliamentary procedure, realising that if we have—as I think, unfortunately—to enter the
      1470
      E.E.C., we must preserve the rights of this Parliament, otherwise we shall be abandoning something whose loss will he a very great disgrace to the whole of our generation.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Listening to the debate both yesterday and today I must say that as a non-lawyer I tend to get somewhat confused because of the very difficult lawyer's language that is used and also the depth of knowledge that is required about treaties and the general aspects of our constitutional law itself. The Solicitor-General was absolutely right yesterday when he agreed that the House was entitled to regard this Clause—the so-called definition Clause—and the Amendments that we are putting forward as an important part of the Bill. It is obvious to me, listening to these debates, that it is one of the most important parts of this Bill, and I think we would all agree on that.
      The Amendment before us is also of the greatest importance. The words in the Bill are:
      "… any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities, with or without any of the member States, or entered into, as a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties, by the United Kingdom."
      The Amendment seeks to ensure that this must be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Commons. This leads to the essential point that was raised by the Father of the House the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton), who has just spoken, because it seems to me that the British people are now being placed in a position in which we are not giving the proper parliamentary scrutiny. After all, we are only here because they put us here, we are here as their representatives; therefore, if we are not able to scrutinise properly the legislation that we are being asked to accept in the name of the people of this country, obviously the British people are not being given the fullest opportunity to know precisely what they are having put upon them as a result of this particular Bill.
      What is being asked in this Amendment is the very least that can be asked for. My own opinion is that we should go much further even than this Amendment in fact, we ought to have a number of debates, not only on future legislation with which we may be faced but on past

      1471
      legislation that we are being asked to accept, because when we look at that mountain of legislation that we have had put in front of us and begin to consider some of the aspects of it, it is appalling what we are being asked to accept without proper scrutiny in this House. I wonder what is going to happen when the British people wake up one day and discover that they have had this great mountain of agreements, treaties and arrangements suddenly thrust upon them and introduced into our law. They will say, "When were we ever consulted in relation to this?" Surely that is the essence of the argument at the present moment. This is a very important matter.
      Mr. Anthony Fell: But is it not more likely that rather than their having such a rude shock the whole thing will be a gradual infiltration into our lives and we shall not even notice it? That is how liberty is lost.
      Mr. Heffer: I quite agree. We always have to fight for our liberties—both to extend them and to preserve what we already have. One of the most vital things I learned at my father's knee is that we always have to fight to protect our liberties, and to extend them. When our liberties are being whittled away as they are as a result of this Bill, it is high time that not just we in Parliament but the whole nation sat up and said, "We are not prepared to allow this to happen."
      I have been in this House for only a brief period of seven years. Like many other hon. Members, I have come to love the House, not because of the building but because of what it stands for—because we have a parliamentary democracy for which our forefathers fought and struggled. They did not have democracy handed to them on a plate. Moses did not come down from the mountain handing out the tablets. It was the efforts of the ordinary people of this country, of all classes and all ages, who fought for the basic democratic rights and principles of parliamentary democracy that we now possess. Anything which whittles that away must be resisted in the strongest possible way by Members of the House of Commons and the British people as a whole.
      This is a vitally important matter, because the Committee is being asked
      1472
      to accept a whole series of treaties and agreements to which we have in no way been a party at any time. Whether we like it or not, they are being thrust upon us by the provisions of this Bill. This is what will happen if the Bill remains unamended and if we do not assert our rights to ensure that we shall have the opportunity to go into past treaties and agreements which we are being asked to accept.
      This Amendment at least would restore, though only to a minor degree, some of the sovereignty of this House. I have referred to the treaties which are involved. Some of those treaties are contained in 10 volumes recently published by the Stationery Office under the title "European Community Treaties and Related Instruments". I have not had the opportunity of reading all the treaties and related instruments. If I were to attempt to do so, I should be engaged on nothing else for the next few months and my parliamentary work in other directions would come to an absolute halt. There is a mountain of material contained in these ten volumes.
      Mr. Richard Body: There are 41 volumes in all.
      Mr. Heffer: I have not mentioned all the others which relate to the regulations, and so on. The volumes with which I am concerned include amendments to various treaties, such as the treaty concerning Euratom. Volume 8, which is in five parts, deals with treaties with countries outside the E.E.C. such as Greece, Morocco, Tunisia and Spain. These treaties set up joint ministerial committees and provide for close contacts between the Community and the countries concerned. These treaties are being incorporated by paragraph 7, Schedule 1, of the Bill. Little is said about those treaties, but that is the situation. When we look at the few brief words in this provision, we must remember that we are talking about 10 volumes which are in the Stationery Office for anybody to buy at a cost of £6—[An HON. MEMBER: "And the rest!"] I am referring only to the volumes with which I am dealing. The whole set would cost a great deal more. However, the ordinary person cannot fork out even £6 for a small part of what we are supposed to be discussing.

      1473
      These treaties are to be incorporated in this Bill without any individual consideration of them by the Committees. The Amendment with which we are dealing may not cover the point I am seeking to raise, but I hope that it will go some way towards asking for some consideration of this point.
      [Mr. E. L MALLALIEU in the Chair]
      4.45 p.m.
      It is only future treaties which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure; past treaties will not be in any way affected. Let us look at some of the treaties concerned. No doubt we all have different opinions about the various countries involved in these treaties. Although hon. Gentlemen opposite may disagree with me about régimes in those countries, I hope that they will agree that I have the right to raise objections to those régimes and also, in the last analysis, to vote on any agreements which relate to those countries.
      I should like to refer to two countries which come within the ambit of these treaties, in one case involving a semi-Fascist régime and in the other case an out-and-out Fascist régime. I refer to Greece and Spain.
      The agreement with Greece is of long standing and concerns the importation of wine. It was agreed on 30th June, 1963—long before the colonels came to power in Greece. Therefore, I suppose one could argue that there were mitigating circumstances involved in that agreement with Greece. Nevertheless, we are entitled to ask why we should assist trade with Greece automatically, through the various treaties and agreements which have already been agreed with the Community, without our having any say on those agreements. Although the régime in Greece is dictatorial, it is not quite in the same category as that of Spain. If we as democrats want to urge the Greeks to return to the democratic parliamentary system, we could use as a bartering weapon the question of trade with that country. It could be one of the sanctions we use. We could say "Yes, we shall agree to an extension of trade with you, but we shall only do so if you in Greece will agree to return to democratic principles".
      Mr. R. T. Paget: Does my hon. Friend think that we would be likely to trade with somebody who said, "Your trade with us depends on your changing your constitution?"
      Mr. Heffer: I do not know what would happen. All I am saying is that at least we would have some say. I know that my hon. and learned Friend is much more interested in supporting dictatorships than I am, but I feel that we shall find ourselves saddled with an agreement which has been incorporated as part of this Bill, without our having any say whatever on the agreement itself. I am not in favour of the situation in Greece, and this is one way of dealing with it.
      Much more important than Greece is Spain. An agreement with Spain was entered into on 29th June, 1970, and it is outlined in Volume VIII, part 3. The agreement gives respectability to an undemocratic régime. In June, 1970, hon. Members were not following very closely agreements being made by the E.E.C. On our way to the hustings in the early morning we may have noticed that something was going on but we did not follow it too closely. We were more interested in being returned to the House. All hon. Members, whether they are antiMarketeers or pro-Marketeers, should be concerned about agreements made with Spain on which he have had no say. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) has said recently that it would be in the best interest of our people for us to have full debates and discussion on all these issues in front of the nation, so that the people would know precisely what is involved in accepting the Bill.
      The Solicitor-General said yesterday that when we originally applied to join the E.E.C. we all knew exactly what was involved, and he quoted Lord George-Brown. I remember the speech which Lord George-Brown made at the Labour Party conference in which he said, quoting what he had said at The Hague, that he had reserved certain fundamental questions such as the common agricultural policy, levies and value-added tax. Although an application for membership had been made, at no time was it accepted that we had to join without first negotiating these matters, and if we could not get the changes we wanted ultimately deciding not to join.

      1475
      At the meeting of the Council of Ministers at The Hague in December, 1969, it was agreed that future applicants must accept all treaties and arrangements already entered into by the E.E.C. That is what caused me eventually to come out against entry. I believed that as long as we were able to negotiate and to repudiate certain existing agreements there was a possibility of our going in on favourable terms, but once it was made absolutely clear that we had to accept all the previous agreements without having a chance to renegotiate or discuss them I had to say "No".
      The agreement with Spain states:
      "Determined to consolidate and extend the economic and trade relations existing between the European Economic Community and Spain,
      "Aware of the importance of the smooth development of trade between the contracting parties,"
      I am not in favour of consolidating and extending economic and trade relations with Spain. The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) smiles. He is entitled to disagree with me, but if we have the opportunity to debate the matter in the House and I am defeated I have to accept the democratic decision; but I do not want to accept the agreement without having the opportunity, on behalf of my constituents, to say that I do not want it, and that is what is happening now.
      Mr. Michael Foot: I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend says. Presumably, that agreement, which would be binding as he rightly argues, was made by countries which did not take into account the situation in Gibraltar and the desires of the people in Gibraltar. Therefore, the agreement, which will become legally enforceable in this country, did not take into account a matter of supreme importance to this country and to Spain.
      Mr. Heffer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he has underlined the position very clearly. I say to the hon. and learned Member for Solihull that there is a special arrangement between East Germany and the Communities which we shall have to accept if we join. He may not like that, but he will not be able to say anything about it. Whether we like it or not, we shall have to accept it. We should have the right to say what we feel and to vote on the matter.
      Mr. Daniel Awdry: Has the hon. Gentleman any objection to this country trading with Communist China?
      Mr. Heffer: We have the right to say in the House whether we want to trade with Communist China. That is a different matter. Arrangements are now being thrust upon us in which we have had no say.
      Mr. Awdry: I think the hon. Gentleman has missed my point. I am asking for his personal view. His personal view is that the United Kingdom should not trade with Spain. I am asking him what is his personal attitude to trading with China?
      Mr. Heffer: My personal view does not matter. I am all in favour of trading with China, but I want to have the right to be able to say in the House on behalf of my constituents whether or not we should do so. Then, at the next General Election if my constituents do not think I am right they will know what to do about it.
      Mr. Peter Shore: My hon. Friend, clearly, does not need any assistance—he is making a very effective speech—but I should like to add one point. If the Community were to negotiate a trade agreement with China that agreement would be binding upon us.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. Heffer: I am not in favour of consolidating existing economic and trade relations with Spain. Therefore, in all honesty I cannot say that I want to see the smooth development of trade with a Facist régime.
      The agreement holds out further development prospect. If we look at it, it will be seen that it is a paving agreement, first, for association with the Community and, secondly, for full membership. I have been against Spain becoming a member of the Council of Europe and a member of N.A.T.O., and have said so in the House. Why should I now be placed in the position of seeming to be in favour of such an agreement without the opportunity to say anything about it?
      I have looked at Article I of the agreement and I regard it as being part of a paving agreement. It says:
      "The gradual elimination of obstacles to the essential elements of the trade between the

      1477
      European Economic Community and Spain shall operate in two stages, in accordance with the procedure prescribed hereafter.
      2. The first stage shall last not less than six years.
      3. The transition from the first to the second stage shall be effected by a Common Agreement of the contracting parties, insofar as these conditions are fulfilled."
      Under the heading "Trade" there are many matters regarding import duties and tariffs with regard to Spain. Under title II, the General and Final Provisions in Article 13 lay down that a joint commission shall be established. There will be regular consultations between the contracting parties and the joint commission shall pronounce decisions by agreement and the presidency of the joint commission shall be taken in turn.
      I am against such a joint commission and against the presidency of it being held in turn by these parties. I do not except all hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree, but I do not want Spain as a Facist régime to be given any respectability in democratic communities. However, like it or not, I and my constituents are being forced to give such respectability. I can understand that the Government may not take my view. After all, the Foreign Secretary has just returned from Spain. I would hope that a Labour Foreign Secretary would not make such a visit. I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong for someone to visit that country, but at least I can get up in the House and criticise and oppose the visit by our Foreign Secretary. If any agreement is made with Spain as things stand, I would be able to say that I did not agree with such agreements or decisions. Here we have an entirely different situation, which is why I say that this is a paving agreement for something much wider.
      It could be argued that the objective is to bring Spain into the Community without any change of régime. Surely such an agreement should be scrutinised by the House of Commons very closely. That is why we ought to carry this Amendment as a first step in that direction. While I believe that the British people like holidaying in the sun, in the main they do not approve of the régime in Spain and would be shocked if they thought they were being forced into the kind of agreement I have suggested without their representatives having any real say. This is a serious matter, and no
      1478
      one should be prepared to accept such agreements. Agreements with other countries such as Morocco and Tunisia may involve other hon. Members in the sort of objections that I have over Spain. Yet they will not have the chance to scrutinise any such agreements in depth. They will not have the opportunity of pronouncing one way or another.
      This Clause raises important matters such as the whole issue of the consent of the British people. We are being asked to accept treaties and agreements which do not have the consent of the British people. In the strictest terms they do not even have the consent of the House. The people have no real knowledge of what is involved in these treaties or agreements. The White Paper and its popular version sold throughout the country said little, if anything, about this. That is why I say that people are being deceived and the parliamentary democracy is being undermined by this Bill, which I hope will be opposed by all parts of the Committee.
      I am not asking hon. Members to accept my views on Spain any more than I would necessarily accept their views on other issues. We shall probably profoundly differ, but having differed over an agreement made with an outside body, as things are at present we would at least be taking our decsions democratically and not having them thrust upon us in a deceptive way, which is what will happen here. I hope that I have been able to illustrate the point of principle involved so that all hon. Members may accept it and will he prepared to support this Amendment and restore some of our sovereignty which is being taken away through this Bill.
      Mr. Peter Rees: I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) will forgive me if I do not accompany him on his rather hypothetical Mediterranean excursions. If his argument for not joining the Community is that it might clothe Spain with respectability, it is one of the most original arguments to have been put forward in these debates so far.
      The hon. Gentleman raised certain points of principle, and he is right when he says that the Amendment must be judged by reference to questions of principle. It is implicit in the various votes

      1479
      taken by this House that we recognise that in joining the Common Market there must inevitably be a measure of executive and legislative delegation. After all, that is the point of joining. People may be for it or against it, but that is the principle of the Common Market.
      Mr. Deakins: Surely the word "delegation" is wrong. "Delegation" means that at any future stage it can be taken back. The proposal is to give up permanently. That is not delegation.
      Mr. Rees: I chose my word with care, and I am sure that constitutional lawyers such as the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) will confirm that this is what is implicit in our acceding to the Common Market. We should by sanctioning a delegation of legislative and executive power to the institutions of the Common Market—
      Mr. Michael English: Transference.
      Mr. Rees: The word that I have chosen is "delegation". I pick my words with more care than the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) does from a seated position. The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) said that this was permanent delegation. It may be intended by the supporters of accession that it should be permanent. If the decision is taken, I hope that it will be. But it need not be so under our constitutional precedents—
      Mr. English rose—
      Mr. Rees: No. I have given way to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West, and I am dealing with his point. I hope that I shall be allowed to develop it.
      It need not be permanent delegation. This House or the Crown in Parliament remains permanently sovereign in respect of this country unless and until we form part of a unitary State in Europe. We formed one unitary state by the unions with Scotland and Ireland. But we are not forming one by acceding to the Common Market. Therefore, the Crown and Parliament remain supreme. It may be that taking the country out of the Common Market would involve a breach of our treaty obligations. But as a pure
      1480
      constitutional proposition there is no permanent delegation necessarily involved.
      Mr. William Baxter: Under which article of the Treaty of Rome does the hon. and learned Gentleman find that we delegate our powers to the Common Market countries?
      Mr. Rees: Unfortunately, I have not a copy of the treaty before me. But it is implicit in the treaty. It is the whole essence of the treaty. There is the Council of Ministers, and there are Community institutions to which the constituent members delegate certain powers. One does not have to point to a specific article in the treaty. This is the essence of the treaty.
      Mr. English: I spoke earlier from a seated position because the hon. and learned Gentleman would not allow me to stand up in order to intervene. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have produced a rather confused argument which ignores Article 6 of the Act annexed to the Treaty of Accession. If he looks at the treaties for which we are legislating, he will find it stated there specifically that they may be repealed or amended only by the means provided therein. That is Community law. According to this Bill, any decision of the European Court is incorporated in our law by a later Clause. He will find that we are incorporating Community law into the law of this country.
      It is no good the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that in the past it has always been held by our courts that Parliament can reverse a decision, because that has never been held in the case of certain types of decision. When, for example, we have transferred power to a colony and made it an independent State, no court would hold that that could be reversed. In practice, it cannot be reversed. Furthermore, the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong when he says that the only way in which this could be altered is by our agreeing to become part of a unitary State. There are more arguments about the extent of political control in Europe. There are arguments about whether we should become part of a federal State. But no one has ever suggested a unitary State. However, a country can lose its sovereignty

      1481
      in part by becoming part of a federal State like the United States of America, without having to become part of a unitary State.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. Rees: I apologise for my acerbity in dealing with the hon. Gentleman's earlier intervention from a seated position. I understand his point. However, I was merely adducing my own point about a unitary State as one of the possible outcomes that would involve a permanent loss of sovereignty and not merely permanent delegation.
      There are many possible outcomes. We might choose to become part of a confederal system, part of a federal system, or part of a unitary system in Europe, and that might involve a permanent loss of sovereignty. But under the Treaty of Accession we should be involved merely in a delegation of our legislative and executive powers.
      Taking the hon. Gentleman's other point, it is right to say that we import Community law and the decisions of the European Court into our own legislative framework. That is one of the provisions of Clause 2. But that does not preclude us in this House, with the concurrence of another place and the Sovereign, from repealing the whole Bill. That might involve a breach of our treaty obligations. But our courts would be obliged to take account of the legislative position in the light of the Act of repeal.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: How does the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees), reconcile what he has just said with the statement of the Solicitor-General yesterday that:
      "The intention of the Bill is to secure the supremacy of Community law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 1333.]
      There it is in a nutshell, and it is totally irreconcilable with what the hon. and learned Member has just been saying.
      Mr. Rees: I have profound respect for my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. However, I am making my speech and giving my own view of the law. My hon. and learned Friend will have plenty of opportunity to make his own speech and give his view. If the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) looks closely at what my hon. and learned Friend said, he will see
      1482
      that it is not irreconcilable with my point. We are endeavouring to give supremacy to Community law and even to Community judicial decisions. If the hon. Gentleman had been following my point, he would have known that I was arguing that we should be in a position to repeal this Bill and take ourselves out of the Community. That might involve a breach of our treaty obligations. But our courts would be bound by the subsequent legislation introduced by this House.
      Mr. Paget indicated assent.
      Rees: I am fortified by the support of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), with whom I crossed swords on Monday. I am gratified to know that we see eye to eye on this point. It is a substantial one, and I am endeavouring to relate the Amendment with this important point of principle.
      I entirely understand and sympathise with the motives which have led right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to put down the Amendment, but the consequences are plain. It would reduce the Community, to which we would be a party, from being a dynamic association to a rather inert customs union. We can take our choice. However, I think that all the votes on questions of principle taken by the House demonstrate clearly that the House, at any rate, wants a dynamic association such as that envisaged by the Treaty of Rome and our Treaty of Accession. So on a point of principle I could not conscientiously support the Amendment.
      The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) raised certain other technical points. He wondered how subsection (3) could be reconciled with subsection (2). These are technical points. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General could deal with them more adequately, but as I am on my feet perhaps I may be allowed to offer my view to the Committee.
      Subsection (3) is, on the whole, to assist the courts of this country in that it might be difficult in litigation to demonstrate whether a treaty could be regarded as a Community treaty and, therefore, how far the courts of this country had to take account of it. If the matter is put beyond doubt by an Order in Council, it is enormously simplified for those who

      1483
      need to have recourse to the British courts. This is, as it were, pure machinery.
      Mr. Jay: Would it not have the effect of removing the decision whether it was a treaty from the courts and putting it in the hands of the Government of the day?
      Mr. Rees: Yes. However, the courts have never regarded it as their function to make law, except in the interpretative sense. In the legislative sense, the power must rest with the Government of the day, or, indeed, with the institutions of the Community. All that I am endeavouring to point out is that subsection (3) has certain merits to my way of thinking, because it simplifies the task of the courts in determining whether a treaty, which may have certain consequences on litigation in this country, is a Community treaty.
      Mr. Spearing: The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that it might be a good thing for the Government to make law on this point. Therefore, he is saying, is he not, that it is a matter for the Privy Council to make law? Does he agree that this is a reversion, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) pointed out some time ago, to something which has not happened in this country for at least 300 years? If the Privy Council decided to make law something which had been made law in treaty terms in the Community, that is, in effect, taking away the legislative power of the House. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman content with that for the future?
      Mr. Rees: This is a very refined and semantic exchange.
      Mr. Spearing: No.
      Mr. Rees: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to elaborate. In a marginal sense I suppose subsection (3), if implemented, could be said to involve the making of law because there might be an area of doubt in litigation in this country whether a treaty was a Community treaty. Therefore if the matter is put beyond doubt by an Order in Council, I concede that that involves making law. However, it is to such a marginal extent that I should not find great difficulty in accepting subsection (3) if that is the only
      1484
      objection to it. No doubt there will be many objections taken in subsequent Amendments.
      I should like to move on, because the right hon. Member for Battersea, North was inclined to sketch out some horrific scenarios. For example, he suggested that the Government of the day might enter into a treaty with Russia turning this country into a one-party State. However, the right hon. Gentleman overlooks one point. As I see it, subsection (3) must be read subject to subsection (2). Subsection (2) governs subsection (3). I should think that subsection (3) is more machinery than substance. Subsection (2) clearly states,
      "and other treaty entered into by any of the Communities".
      I hope that that will set the right hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. It is not just any treaty which can be designated by Order in Council as a Community treaty: it must be a
      "treaty entered into by any of the Communities",
      because one must read subsection (3) as subject to subsection (2).
      Mr. Jay rose—
      Mr. Rees: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish this point.
      On the question of treaties to which the United Kingdom accedes, again, by reference to subsection (2), they must be treaties ancillary to any of the treaties or the Community treaties. So it is a little fanciful to suggest that a treaty with Russia which had no bearing on any of the Community treaties could be, as it were, legitimated by the procedure under subsection (3).
      Mr. Jay: That does not comfort me at all, because it does not say that in subsection (3). If that is the intention of subsection (3), surely even the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that it should clearly say so, and then there would be no argument between us.
      Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman puts me in a difficult position. I am not responsible for drafting the Clause. It may be that it could be spelt out explicitly in words of one syllable which would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. I can only say, with due humility, that it struck me as fairly plain, because it must

      1485
      be read as subject to subsection (2). No doubt my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is taking full account of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and if he feels that the courts of this country will be in real difficulties on this point he may consider an Amendment. With respect to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, it does not strike me as a point of real substance.
      The right hon. Gentleman—I apologise for taking so long—said that there would be a massive incursion into the common law of this country. This is a point of very little substance. The Bill and our accession to the treaty will make only a marginal difference to our common law. In any event, the common law of this country is not some ossified corpus which is not susceptible of development and alteration. The essence of our common law is that it has developed from generation to generation and, regrettably perhaps, is being superseded by statutory law. I remind the right hon. Gentleman, to allay his fears, that we have now been connected with Scotland for over 2½ centuries; as far as I am aware, the law of Scotland is still fundamentally different from ours, and is likely to be so for many generations to come. Therefore, I see no great force in that objection.
      On the general point of principle, I believe that to accept the Amendment would deprive the Community of much of its life force.
      5.30 p.m.
      Sir Elwyn Jones: I intervene at this stage in the debate to raise one or two matters which, I suggest, abundantly justify the Amendments which the Committee is now discussing. Others of my right hon. and hon. Friends who will be seeking to catch your eye hereafter, Mr. Mallalieu, have other important matters which they desire to raise on these Amendments, and I hope that they will forgive me for intervening now.
      It is agreeable to follow the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees). He has stated that it is implicit, indeed explicit, that in joining the Community some delegation of legislative or executive power to the Community organisations is involved. However, this is delegation, if that is the right word, with a difference. It is not like normal
      1486
      delegation if the Bill becomes law. As time goes on, it will be almost impossible to recall it. It is, and will become, a once-for-all departure and decline of parliamentary sovereignty. If this comes to pass, the inevitable consequence will be that after some years the involvement of this country with the countries of the Community and the Community itself will become so complex that, although as a matter of law it will theoretically be possible to pull out, as a matter of practice it will become almost impossible and impracticable to do so. So the importance of these debates is that this is, as I said a few days ago, a "last opportunity" occasion. It is vitally important that what is involved should be made clear beyond doubt, since Clause 1 is no mere interpretation Clause, but has been conceded to be the very foundation to the Bill.
      I still find a good deal of obscurity in the meaning and construction of important parts of the Clause. First, what is the precise ambit of the words "any other treaty" in line 5 on page 2? It appears to be "a treaty or a Community treaty". But the treaties there referred to all pre-accession treaties or post-accession treaties or both? It is astonishing that this should be a matter of doubt.
      If the ambit of these words is confined to pre-accession treaties, why does not the Bill say so? It would seem unlikely that it is so confined because, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said, Schedule 1(7) deals expressly with that category of treaty. The Solicitor-General and the Parliamentary draftsmen are too astute and skilful to engage in unnecessary and repetitious padding.
      If the phrase relates to future treaties, Parliament should still have a voice in deciding whether such a treaty is to be treated as a Community treaty for the purposes of the Act and should be able to control the Government's judgment of whether it is a Community treaty. Parliament cannot, and should not, be bound by the judgment of the Government over the classification of a treaty, which may be an arbitrary and wholly wrong judgment.
      What has come to be identified by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) as

      1487
      Part A of Clause 1(3) provides no protection for Parliament. At most, it is merely a piece of restrictive evidential machinery, and in itself provides no opportunity for even discussion by Parliament of the Government's ipse dicit that a treaty declared as such in an Order in Council is to be regarded as one of the Community treaties. That mere assertion in an Order in Council by the Government is to be final. Not only is Parliament to be shut out, but so are the courts, except in extravagant circumstances where the ultra vires doctrine might be called in aid.
      If the phrase "any other treaty" is intended to refer to past treaties, Parliament is being invited to buy a pig in a poke. We do not know what they are. They are not even identified, unless it is said that, in so far as they are past treaties, they are all identified in Schedule I. But it does not say so.
      If only because of the uncertainty in which the words of the Bill leave the matter, apart from the intrinsic merit of the proposal, it is right in the circumstances that the Committee should insist on inserting the words proposed in Amendment No. 96. Parliament should demand that as a minimum requirement, in view of the importance of this matter and the unsatisfactory state of the drafting of the Clause.
      We have not yet had much discussion of Amendment No. 147, but Parliament is also entitled to this protection and influence. The Government have conceded under subsection (3) that the country is entitled to some parliamentary control in respect of treaties entered into by the United Kingdom after 22nd January, 1972, other than a limited class which is set out in the parenthesis. But all that they are offering is an opportunity for debate and, if need be, rejection. That is not enough.
      We are dealing with treaties which will hereafter be negotiated by the Government without Parliament's intervention, certainly at the negotiation stage, and perhaps without even the knowledge of Parliament. There is no procedure set out for a statutory undertaking that Parliament will at every stage be informed and consulted. Parliament is entitled to a full examination of such treaties, and
      1488
      Parliament well knows that the best method of doing so is by the full process of enactment.
      I should like to reinforce some of the impressive observations of the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir R. Turton). When we were discussing the withering away of Parliament's rôle yesterday, the Chancellor of the Duchy fell back on the possible machinery which this ad hoc committee might propose. It was to that that he was looking for protection. However, according to The Times report of it—I heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech and would call this an accurate report—what the Chancellor of the Duchy contemplates is not by any means reassuring. The report tells us:
      "when he moved the second reading of the Bill he had said the Government believed there was a need for the House to have special arrangements under which it would be apprised of the draft regulations and directives. The ad hoc committee he proposed would consider the most suitable arrangements."
      Thus, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman contemplates is mere apprisal, and that is not enough. Mere apprisal means simply that Parliament will be told. It is hoped that Parliament will not be left completely in the dark; but at best it will be left in a dim twilight.
      I submit that Parliament should not only be "apprised" of draft regulations, directives, treaties and so on but should be given power to instruct the Government to tell their representative at the Council of Ministers or Commission, as the case may be, to vote or abstain on any future matter in accordance with Parliament's decision.
      Mr. Spearing: Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) is not in his place, but I know that he had a copy yesterday of what the Chancellor of the Duchy had said. I have obtained a copy from the Library. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say:
      "the House of Commons cannot get away from the position stated as long ago as May, 1967, that there is this field which I have defined, a limited but definite field, which successive Governments have said they accept, together with everything that flows from them, to make these treaties."
      He did not even accept that Parliament had the right to say whether or not it accepted.
      Sir Elwyn Jones: Perhaps the Solicitor-General will clarify what his right hon. and learned Friend said in the twilight of last night—in the black dark of last night might be a more accurate description.
      The Times report of what the Chancellor of the Duchy said and my understanding of his remarks show that he contemplates mere apprisal. On the other hand, I submit that whatever machinery is set up should involve Parliament and enable Parliament to be involved at every stage before changes affecting our law, commerce and finance are effected in the Community and by Community organisations.
      It is intolerable that in this "last opportunity" Bill proper parliamentary procedures have not been set out. We are simply left with the hope that, with the assistance of the ad hoc committee, suitable arrangements will be made after the Bill has become law. I submit that the time is now to embody in the Bill the parliamentary safeguards which we feel are essential.
      The bland assumption of the Chancellor of the Duchy that all will be well—that all we need do is wait for the ad hoc committee and take the Government on trust—is not enough. It is not enough to say that all will be well in the long run. As J. M. Keynes used to say, in the long run we shall all be dead. In the long run Parliament's strength and authority in the critical spheres of finance and commerce may also be dead. Now is the time for Parliament to assert the need to create machinery of supervision and involvement.
      Mr. Baxter: I am extremely interested in my right hon. and learned Friend's discourse about the need to write into this Measure certain safeguards for our parliamentary procedure, compared with what is contained in the Treaty of Rome. Some of us believe that that treaty, which was discussed by this Parliament in the first place, places certain obligations on this Parliament, as it does on other assemblies in the treaty organisation. It was suggested on that occasion that those obligations should be amended before we entered the E.E.C., but, unfortunately, the Cabinet of which my right hon. and learned Friend was a Member more or less accepted the implications of the
      1490
      Treaty of Rome, so that what we are discussing now are simply the nuts and bolts to operate the treaty, which, as we know, will take away many of this Parliament's powers.
      I am anxious not to make a speech when intervening in my right hon. and learned Friend's contribution, and I intervene at some length only because Scottish hon. Members are debarred from speaking in this debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes, we are. There has been only one Front Bench speaker—
      5.45 p.m.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech or be led away from his intervention.
      Mr. Baxter: I agree, Mr. Mallalieu. It is tempting to be led from the straight and narrow path. I am intervening only in an attempt to put my right hon. and learned Friend back on the path of reality. The Treaty of Rome will take away considerable powers from this legislative assembly.
      Sir Elwyn Jones: The House has heard of the taciturn Scot. I do not think my hon. Friend can be included in the distinguished band. He drew attention to the 1967 White Paper, but we had not at that stage worked out the details of the massive legislation that was contemplated. I am certain that we would not have accepted machinery of the kind to be established under this Bill, which will leave parliamentary involvement and influence utterly naked.
      The Chancellor of the Duchy sought some comfort in his speech last night in the fact that in certain circumstances there will be need for consultation with the European Parliament. I do not want to traverse again the ground covered already in various aspects of this debate, in which the hollow reed of the power and influence of the European Parliament as it exists has been exposed.
      It is because of our concern with the situation with which the Bill confronts us that my hon. Friends tabled Amendment No. 163, which proposes a new subsection to Clause 1. This Amendment seeks to insert:
      "Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3) hereof a treaty which changes the general law of the United Kingdom or imposes

      1491
      financial obligations on Her Majesty's subjects shall not be regarded as one of the Community treaties unless accepted and approved by an Act of Parliament."
      Such an admittedly exceptional provision is justifiable by reason of the exceptional nature of the treaties with which we are dealing. Parliament has always had power to accept treaties with reservations, and it is right that this basic provision should be clearly spelt out in view of the obscurity of some of the provisions of this Clause.
      Full statutory procedures are the safest machinery for the protection of Parliament and the people in future. Prerogative power is a seductive but dangerous mistress for a Minister in a parliamentary democracy. This series of Amendments will restrict that power and protect the Solicitor-General from the grave temptation which now confronts him.
      Sir Derek Walker-Smith: It is always a privilege to follow the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), who brings to bear the great weight of his legal and parliamentary distinction on all these matters, more especially where matters of law are involved. But I should say to the Committee that, although a number of hon. and right hon. Members who have been taking part in these debates have been legally qualified Members of Parliament, what we are discussing today is not only, nor indeed primarily, a matter of the mechanics of treaty-making, important and interesting as they are, nor only nor primarily concerned with abstract and arid questions of international law, important and interesting as they are.
      We are concerned here with great questions of principle as to how far it is proper for our basic law and arrangements to be handed over to extraneous and supra-national processes and thereby to that extent divorced from that parliamentary control which hitherto through the generations has been axiomatically considered to be the indispensable ingredient of our constitutional arrangements. The reason why this involves these great matters of principle is the close link between Clause 1, which we are discussing, and the treaties and regulations made thereunder, which we shall come to in more detail on Clause 2. Of
      1492
      course, the freer the rein given to extraneous treaty arrangements under Clause 1, the greater the subordination of Parliament to the regulations made under those treaties under Clause 2.
      I make no apology for referring to this link; indeed I think it ought to be referred to throughout the discussions on this Clause. In the days of ancient Rome Marcus Cato laid himself open to the charge of tedious repetition by ending every speech, on whatever subject, with the words "Delenda est Carthago". But in this particular case, because of the description given to Clause 1, the somewhat inapposite description of an interpretation Clause merely, it is necessary for all hon. Members to have in mind this very close link with the effective provisions of Clause 2, the heart of the matter as it has been described, which effectively subordinates the sovereignty of Parliament to regulations made under the treaties we are discussing.
      We have had indentified for us, thanks to the clear, analytical processes of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray King) in a most impressive parliamentary performance yesterday, no fewer than 11 categories of treaties with which we are here concerned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) simplified that to two categories, the existing treaties and the future or prospective treaties. We are concerned in the particulars of Amendments which the Committee is discussing primarily with the category of future or prospective treaties. Those fall within the last two of the hon. and learned Gentleman's identified 11 categories. Those are the two which he called in an apt and felicitous phrase "the portmanteau provisions" which follow each other in lines 5 to 8 of this Clause.
      Both these two portmanteau provisions have similarities and also differences. They are similar in that they are in the future category of treaty. They are similar in that they are portmanteau provisions; that is to say, they are susceptible of unlimited expansion in the future. They are similar in that they are both capable of spawning innumerable regulations which will be self-executing and binding in every respect. Their differences are as follows: The first category of Community treaties

      1493
      is those to which Britain may not be a party at all, even though British rights and the British economy will be affected. In this category Parliament, I think it is now agreed, has no rights at all beyond the vestigial and academic right of identification under Part A of subsection (3) merely as a matter of evidence or machinery. In the second category of these treaties where Britain is a party there is, of course, the protection of Part B of subsection (3), for what it is worth.
      I shall say a brief word first in regard to the Community treaties. Here I would think the position is wholly and patently unsatisfactory. We are, we are told in effect, to be prisoners of Article 228 of the Treaty of Rome. We are told that that precludes even the limited protection of Part B of subsection (3) of Clause 1. The operative words of paragraph 2 of Article 228 are:
      "Agreements concluded under these conditions shall be binding on the institutions of the Community and on Member States."
      What are these conditions which, if satisfied, would make the future Community treaties, of unknown scope and content, binding upon us in every respect? First, they are to be "negotiated by the Commission". That would hardly bring much comfort to democrats. Secondly, they are to be "concluded in the Council" of the Community. Of course there is no requirement of unanimity in respect of these treaties under Article 228. The wording of that article, which is the general article, is different from the wording of Article 238, which does require unanimity but is concerned only with the limited context of treaties of association. For Article 228 a qualified majority is enough. Therefore, there could be no right of veto on the part of this country in regard to these future Community treaties.
      The third condition is "after consulting the Assembly", but that is a requirement of consultation only. That somewhat shadowy body will have no executive rights in this matter no rights of approval or rejection or even of amendment. It is therefore because of Article 228 that the Community treaties will be subject only to Part A, only to the evidential provisions, of subsection (3), and, of course, the Orders in Council, as we are now aware, are a
      1494
      matter of convenience only. The treaties and regulations would be just as binding if they were not evidenced by any Order in Council. At most it would make them by that degree more difficult to prove.
      What is the defence which is made in this matter? I also have had the advantage—
      Mr. English: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman passes to another point, I wonder whether he would care to inquire why it is therefore necessary? I am sure he is absolutely right in the argument he has used about Community treaties and, therefore, that a portion of subsection (3) is not necessary, as he said. If he passes on to consider why it is there, he might ask himself whether that is because it is possible that the Council might exceed its powers.
      [Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]
      6.0 p.m.
      Sir D. Walker-Smith: As the hon. Gentleman and the Committee know, I am a person of very trusting and unsuspicious mind. I was prepared to take the explanation as given; that it does, from an evidential and machinery point of view, make matters easier. But on the point with which we are really concerned, there can be no doubt that it adds nothing effective at all to parliamentary control.
      Therefore, we have to consider the Government's defence to this position. I also have been able to refresh my memory with the text of the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend late last night. What he said was this:
      "Looking at the list of existing Community treaties we see that many of them are only of very limited interest to this country and Parliament."
      That seems to be cold comfort. What about the other ones which are of more than limited interest? What about the future ones whose scope and content we cannot yet know? It is not even as good an excuse as the classically unsatisfactory excuse of the housemaid in regard to its being only a little one, and even her defence would have been treated with greater scepticism if there had been reason to believe that she was contemplating the production of triplets in the very near future.
      But even the existing Community treaties are not as limited as my right

      1495
      hon. and learned Friend suggested. There was some discussion about the Iranian Treaty with the Community, but the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) was able to point out in an intervention that Articles 3 and 4 of that treaty introduced substantial modifications in trading arrangements. But, in any event, it is not, with respect, a question whether particular provisions in particular Community treaties happen to be good or bad. Whether they be good or bad in these economic matters will, clearly, be a value judgment based on economic criteria which may be disputed. I have no doubt that King Charles I and Strafford would have been able, on economic and administrative grounds, to deploy powerful arguments for ship money, and they did. But it did not alter the fact that it was subordinating the democratic institutions of the country. The question is, what is the breadth and scope of the Community treaties? If they range wide, or are liable to range wide—I know of no reason to suppose that they will not—the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty and national sovereignty will be deep indeed.
      As to the remedies suggested in the Amendments for this unsatisfactory state of affairs, Amendment No. 96 would bring the Community treaties within the ambit of parliamentary control by making their operation—and hence the operation of the regulations under Clause 2(1)—subject to approval by affirmative Resolution. That is a considerable improvement. But in my respectful opinion, the remedy prescribed by my right hon.—and, technically only, not learned—Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West in Amendment No. 81 would be even greater. It is a more radical remedy, because it would take the future Community treaties out of the definition of treaties in Clause 1 and thereby effectively, as it were, vasectomise the Community's power to produce self-executing regulations; a drastic remedy, no doubt, but as we have no guarantee or even any likelihood of continence, this salutary and painless surgery may well be a more appropriate remedy even than the mild therapy suggested by Amendment No. 96.
      I pass, for a moment only, to the second category—the treaties entered into by the United Kingdom. This matter
      1496
      turns on a narrower point. It turns not on the total absence of parliamentary control which we have in regard to the Community treaties but on the insufficiency of the parliamentary control, such as it is, afforded by Part B of Clause 1(3). I ventured to ask yesterday what sort of treaties were envisaged into which the United Kingdom would be entering in this way, and what would be their scope and nature. But so far—due, possibly, to the exigencies of time—we have had no information on that point. But we know, at any rate, that their effect would be wide. Therefore, the question for the Committee is this: is the necessity of approval of the draft by affirmative Resolution a sufficient parliamentary safeguard? I believe that there is no need to labour this point. I believe that this is a question which every right hon. and hon. Member will and can answer from his instinct and his parliamentary experience. I believe that the answer must be "No". The answer must be that such a short, once-for-all, single, limited parliamentary occasion as that contemplated in Part B of subsection (3) is wholly insufficient.
      We then come to the suggested remedies for this situation. Amendment No. 147 is an effective remedy. It would substitute the full legislative parliamentary processes for the limited and insufficient parliamentary action envisaged by the Bill. Here, it may be that my right hon. Friend's more drastic surgical remedy, under Amendment No. 82, would not be necessary if effect is given to Amendment No. 147.
      I should be less happy with Amendments Nos. 162 and 163, which we are discussing in this group of Amendments. The suggested new subsection (5) contains the words "the general law". I doubt very much whether this is a term of art which could be readily interpreted in the courts. It seems, therefore, that that Amendment would give rise to difficulties of definition and there is no need to court such difficulties if statutory effect can be given to the clear language of Amendment No. 147.
      I summarise the advice which I would respectfully give to the Government and to the Committee—in regard to Community treaties, to accept either Amendment No. 96 or, preferably, Amendment

      1497
      No. 81, and in regard to the other category of treaties, to accept either Amendment No. 82 or, preferably, Amendment No. 147. Only by such wise action can parliamentary and democratic control he in some measure safeguarded against an onslaught unprecedented in scale and consequences.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: The Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) last night seeks to focus attention in particular on Clause 1(3). Much attention has been focused upon it, to the benefit and elucidation of the Committee. The first Amendment, moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) of necessity touched upon the implications of subsection (3). I shall not seek now to repeat various remarks I made then about that subsection.
      I turn my attention to issues that arose out of the debate on the subsection and are now particularly relevant. The first part of subsection (3) has been labelled Part A, although I dislike this "shorthand", because there is really no Part A or Part B and it is slightly confusing. The first part of the subsection—as far as the semi-colon—which deals with treaties to which the United Kingdom would not be a party, gives the impression that it provides some although not much safeguard. Closer examination, however, shows that the opening words
      "If Her Majesty by Order in Council"
      provides that the subsection is only permissive.
      In the debate yesterday I pressed the Government about the scope of the first Part and asked what would happen if Her Majesty did not seek by Order in Council to designate a treaty as a Community treaty. I am dealing now with treaties between the Communities and third party countries. It took a long time to get an answer. I was not given an answer by the Solicitor-General, but late last night the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was a little more frank. He said that it would have no effect, because these treaties were completely self-executing. That has been said today.
      It is plain that the safeguard which appeared to be contained in the first part of the subsection is a complete sham. If Her Majesty decides not to specify a
      1498
      treaty as a Community treaty, as it is self-executing the right under that treaty will be incorporated automatically into the law of the United Kingdom. An Order in Council would often not be necessary, because it would he obvious that they were Community treaties.
      Having obtained this valuable admission from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, it is necessary to re-examine subsection (2), because if the Chancellor says that rights arising under treaties entered into with third party countries could be incorporated into the law of the United Kingdom without those treaties being designated as Community treaties, subsection (2) must mean what it says it means—treaties, and not Community treaties.
      6.15 p.m.
      We then come to the second part of subsection (3), and the same question arises. Let us consider the treaties which the United Kingdom would enter into with the Communities or the other member States and consider the effect of non-designation of one of these treaties, which may be important. There were reports in the newspapers this morning about the first steps towards monetary and economic union. We read about the narrowing of parities. If the talks go ahead, as I am sure they will, they will eventually lead to a common currency. The whole package of economic and monetary union will be concluded by means of agreement between the United Kingdom and the Communities and possibly the other member States. It will at any rate be a treaty within the wide definition contained in subsection (4). That means that there could be a treaty of fundamental importance which limited the sovereignty of the House to determine exchange rates—a matter of fundamental economic and social importance. On my interpretation of subsection (3), it is not necessary for the Crown even to seek an Order in Council, or even a designation of that treaty as a Community treaty. Following what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, it is clear that rights can arise under these treaties without designation as Community treaties. A court might have to look more closely at such a treaty, because there was no Order in Council, but it would not spend long determining whether that kind of treaty was a treaty as envisaged under Clause 1.

      1499
      We find, therefore, an extremely important treaty for which Clause 1(3) does not provide any safeguard. Although the Solicitor-General has not admitted it, the subsection is merely a piece of machinery to enable the Crown to designate a treaty as a Community treaty for the convenience of the courts. I put the question to the Solicitor-General and he said that a United Kingdom treaty—
      "entered into after 22nd January, 1972, will not be regarded as a Community treaty unless it is so specified and unless a draft of the specifying order has been laid before the House. There is a firm safeguard for a future treaty in respect of which this country is a party."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 1343.]
      It is nothing of the sort. It is not a firm safeguard as I and others, far more learned, read it. It merely provides machinery for the Crown to designate a treaty a Community treaty. The affirmative Resolution is related to that and nothing else. No doubt the Crown may wish to specify such a treaty—perhaps establishing economic unity and a common currency—as a Community treaty, but it does not have to do so under subsection (3).
      The subsection says that an order "shall be conclusive". I believe that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) raised this issue and it was taken up in an intervention. The matter was dealt with by the Solicitor-General, who referred to the case known as the Ansiminic case. He said that it did not matter that this was conclusive, because there were dicta, although he did not have the authority at hand. The Solicitor-General said that there was authority for saying that the courts could consider these matters even when Parliament had declared something to be conclusive, and he cited cases. I should have thought that he would tell the Committee the ambit of that authority and to what it related, for the cases he cited had nothing to do with the courts being asked to decide whether the Sovereign had exercised the prerogative correctly. In those cases the court was dealing with the activities of an inferior tribunal, as the courts like to put it—the Foreign Compensation Commission—when it was held that although the statute did not lay down the process of appeal, the courts could see whether the
      1500
      inferior tribunal had acted ultra vires. The authorities are clear from older cases—when an inferior court does something, the courts may consider it.
      But the Solicitor-General did not deal with that issue. He tried to deal with it by reference to wholly different cases, and there are precedents for saying that the courts will not inquire into certificates presented by the Secretary of State—cases involving the Spanish Civil War, for instance, when certificates issued by a Secretary of State in relation to the recognition of foreign States were deemed to be conclusive. That is far from being a safeguard, for it is unlikely that any English court will question the prerogative of the Crown in these matters.
      When these Amendments were drafted it was felt that they might provide some stronger safeguard, but we had not then had the benefit of this debate, and it is now clear that although the Amendments are an improvement on what the Government suggest, they are still flimsy safeguards. However, Amendment No. 163 goes a little further. It provides that when a treaty alters the general law of United Kingdom, or imposes a financial obligation upon Her Majesty's subjects, that treaty should be approved—if that is the word—by an enactment and not just an affirmative Resolution.
      I entirely accept what the Solicitor-General said about the drafting of the general law of the United Kingdom. The phrase was taken from a great constitutional authority, Professor Hanson, who used it in 1908. This comes to the crux of the matter.
      My understanding from Professor Hanson and Lord McNair had always been that treaties which changed the general law, or imposed financial obligations on Her Majesty's subjects, clearly required the approval of Parliament, although there might be some doubt about what form that approval should take. In view of the importance of these matters, I should have thought that that approval should be by an enactment.
      We are arguing for an enactment for another reason, namely, that so many of these treaties—again the example is that involving a common currency, an economic and monetary union, a realigning of the parities—limit the sovereignty of Parliament. There is good authority

      1501
      for the proposition that treaties limiting the sovereignty of Parliament require approval by means of an Act of Parliament. The matter was mentioned by the Chancellor of the Duchy in our debates last week, especially that on the Chairman's Ruling, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman grudgingly agreed that treaties by which the Crown tried to cede territory by constitutional convention needed the approval of Parliament by means of an enactment, as McNair and Hanson made clear.
      That is exactly the kind of situation that we have in this instance. If the Crown wishes to cede territory and thereby limit the geographic sovereignty of the House, that is no different from the treaties into which we shall be entering and which will also limit the sovereignty of the House, and do so in a much more important way than the cession of some outlying territory.
      Mr. Peter Rees: The hon. Gentleman is enunciating a new and interesting principle of constitutional law. How does he reconcile that with the classic judgments of Lord Atkin v. the Privy Council and the Attorney-General of Canada v. the Attorney-General of Ontario?
      Mr. Davies: It is not a new principle. If the hon. and learned Gentleman reads the 1908 edition of Hanson's "Law of the Constitution" or reads his hon. and learned Friend's speech—when he admitted that a treaty involving the cession of territory by convention required the approval of Parliament—he will see the principle made clear. I am saying that there is nothing special about a treaty ceding territory and that it needs parliamentary approval because the Crown, by entering such a treaty, limits the sovereignty of the House. The Crown may do anything in international affairs, but when that something tends to limit the sovereignty of the House, the House has the right to approve or disapprove as it thinks fit.
      I am saying that these treaties will change the general law of the United Kingdom and impose financial obligations on the citizens of the United Kingdom, and this involves a limitation on the sovereignty of the House. I should like the Solicitor-General to confirm that subsection (3) would not affect the substance of the matter if the Crown should not
      1502
      seek to ask for an Order in Council in relation to the treaties mentioned therein.
      Mr. Michael Grylls: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Helfer) spoke about treaties with countries of which he disapproved, countries which might be dictatorships. I understand his feeling, but in my view it would be better for this country to try to exert influence on treaties drawn up with countries of which he disapproves, or of which others disapprove, by being within the Community rather than without it. I have always thought it better foreign policy to develop trade and contacts with countries rather than just to disapprove of them, and I hope that there will he more and more agreements with countries on either side of the Iron Curtain, about trade and other matters.
      Mr. Paget: I do not disagree with that sentiment, but we are being asked to take on treaties with continuing obligations negotiated when we were not present. That with Spain is an example. If we had been there, we might have negotiated something which did not involve the blockade of Gibraltar. But, without consideration to have to take a series of trading obligations with Spain regardless of the embargo of Gibraltar carried on by Spain seems a bit much.
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. Grylls: It seems to me that what I said is still true. Obviously, we have to accept treaties negotiated with the Community up to now. What is important is what happens in the future. If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton feels so strongly about Spain, Greece or other countries, it is better to try to exert influence within the Community as to what sort of treaties, if any, it should have with them.
      Mr. J. Selwyn Gummer: Only last year we made a treaty with Spain which provided for continuing arrangements in relation to the peaceful uses of atomic energy. That was done in the same circumstances as the agreement referred to, and I do not remember the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) demanding a great debate on that. Indeed, it was not brought before the House, as such treaties never are.
      Mr. Grylls: No doubt the constituents of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton

      1503
      will want to know why he was not on his feet disapproving of such arrangements with Spain, but that is up to him.
      I turn to the speech of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who tried to alarm us by talking of the possibility of the Government's approving a treaty by Order in Council which had nothing to do with the Community—trying to get it through by sleight of hand. That possibility was covered very ably by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General yesterday, when he said
      "I am dealing here with fanciful suppositions. Suppose any Government of this country were to seek to approve in an Order in Council a treaty which was miles away from a Community treaty there is no doubt that such a treaty would be open to challenge in the courts of this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 1334.]
      With our own judicial system, surely we have an absolute safeguard there?
      Mr. Jay: Is that really so? Subsection (3) does not state that treaties can be specified only if they are Community treaties. It says:
      "If Her Majesty by Order in Council declares that a treaty specified in the Order is to be regarded…"
      There is no safeguard in the Clause providing that that can be done only with a Community treaty.
      Mr. Grylls: I maintain that such action would still be challengeable in the courts. I am not a lawyer, but my hon. and learned Friend's exposition seemed to me to be fairly convincing.
      The right hon. Gentleman also tried to alarm the Committee about possible changes in the common law of the land. Here I should like to read a passage from paragraph 32 of the 1967 White Paper. It said:
      "anxieties that British subjects would be liable to criminal proceedings in which they would not enjoy the safeguards of the criminal law and procedure of this country … appear to be based on misconceptions."
      So the right hon. Gentleman's Government seemed to think that that was not a serious possibility. It is wrong to try to alarm the Committee, and perhaps even worse to try to alarm the country at large, about threats of changes to our civil and criminal law.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton)
      1504
      was rightly concerned about a possible sugar agreement entered into by a future Government. He felt there should be a special protocol to cover it. If a new agreement is entered into in 1974 or 1975 and we, as members, discuss and agree it with the Community, it is inconceivable that the matter will be dealt with in the way specified in the Bill. It would be essential for the Government of the day to have a major debate in the House on something so important. If they did not, the Opposition would make jolly sure there was such a debate, irrespective of the 1½-hour debate specified on the approval of a resolution.
      Mr. Keith Stainton: As this is such an important matter, can my hon. Friend say on how many occasions the re-negotiation of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and the International Sugar Agreement, to which the Community is not a signatory—a very important point—has been debated here?
      Mr. Grylls: I cannot say off the cuff, but if the House believed that a new sugar agreement should be debated in the Chamber, as I am sure it would, it certainly would debate it, and it would be a day's debate or at least a half day's debate. It is inconceivable that proposals or agreements on monetary policy such as were discussed yesterday in Brussels would not be discussed for a day or two days in the House.
      In the excessively legalistic debates that we are having it is right to put into the scales the fact that if we join the Community we shall be part of a community. In the debates of the past few days we have sometimes talked of the Community as an abstract body that will suddenly start ruling this country and in which we shall have no voice. But the essence of a community is that we are all part, and we all have a say in what goes on. We shall be working among friends and allies. If anyone should try to steamroll this country or any other member into something it did not agree with, presumably the Community would break asunder, because that is not what the Community is about. The essence of a democracy is that we work together, certainly on the major decisions, otherwise the Community would collapse.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Has the hon. Gentleman taken no account of the stresses, strains, arguments and bitterness between members of the Six? Certainly the Community has held together, but to suggest that it is one happy family is to exaggerate the situation to say the least.
      Mr. Grylls: In the long nights of discussions, arguments and perhaps even verbal battles in the Community since 1967, important decisions have been reached only after unanimity has been achieved. There are arguments among friends. They sit up all night and try to arrive at a solution. In joining the Community we have the advantage of looking back and seeing that it has worked as a corporate body, because it has held together during some of the most difficult stages of its development. That is one of the greatest safeguards we have. Let us remember that we shall be part of this body together.
      I believe that in most instances those Members who have picked out some of the tight, legalistic points are chasing shadows, and seeing pitfalls where none exist.
      Mr. Paget: We are dealing with a very important matter. I do not go along with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on the desirability or otherwise of trying to use economic means to interfere with other countries' domestic policy. Generally, that strengthens our enemies and weakens our friends. It happened in Rhodesia.
      When giving block sanction to a mass of legislation it is important to see whether that legislation is of such a nature that we have a special interest in it which was not considered when it was passed. An example arises in the case of Spain. The Common Market countries were not in conflict with Spain over the question of Gibraltar; we were. They negotiated a large trade agreement. We have to take that agreement without amendment, without consideration, without discussion and wholly regardless of how it affects the blockade being conducted by Spain against Gibraltar. As far as I know, nothing in that agreement will mitigate that blockade.
      Another instance concerns diseases. Owing to an insular position we have
      1506
      a moat that protects us. Foot-and-mouth disease is an instance; rabies is an instance. To what extent do these Acts commit us to a freedom of trade which will prevent our taking that sort of precaution? Assurances one way and another have been given to the agricultural industry in this connection, but nothing very specific and nothing very clear. If there has to be a regulation to give the effect of law here to much of these 42 volumes—or whatever it is, of regulations—that at least means that a look is going to be taken at them.
      As the Solicitor-General said when he went through the lists, a great many of them do not affect us at all so there is no occasion to make them part of our law. Those which we have to make part of our law ought to be specified by an order and brought before us, and that process would at least make somebody—I do not believe that anybody, anywhere, has yet done so—go through this mass of stuff, see which of them require legislation in order to implement them, and which of them have special provisions which are exceedingly awkward for us, in which case we might have to inform the Community that having looked into them in detail we find there are certain provisions which we would not be able to implement. That would at least save us from the trouble with the Community if we join it.
      Simply from the machinery point of view, it is highly important that we have the kind of examination of this mass of stuff that will tell us what we do not require, what we have to bring into our law, and what is really so inconsistent that we cannot cope with it here and have to tell our partners that. I am sure that there would be understanding over that sort of thing—over Gibraltar, and things like that.
      There is one other general point with which I wont to deal—the one raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees), which has been mentioned a good deal, namely, that we are only delegating this legislative power; that we can bring it back to ourselves; that Parliament still retains the sovereignty to repeal this Measure. That, I would immediately concede, is legally so but, as I said in an intervention to the hon. and learned Member for Dover, it is quite unimportant, because that is the

      1507
      kind of power which is of its nature revolutionary. It is the power to tear up laws and treaties. We can decide to break our treaties; we can decide to break the Community laws which we have adopted; we can decide to do it unilaterally—and whether or not we have the constitutional power to do that really does not matter at all; we have the physical power.
      We are in the same position as the southern States. Under State law they had the power to secede, but it meant breaking the contract with the federal authority. The federal authority was in a position, after a bloody war, to enforce that contract. Europe is not in a position to enforce that contract, because Europe is an impotent body. One of my great objections to joining Europe is that it is impotent; that it is incapable of taking decisions to defend itself from us or from anybody else. That is the great danger. But here we are adopting with practical finality a whole block of laws which we have not looked at; which nobody has examined in any detail; which have been negotiated without consideration of our interests, and which we may not even look at now to see whether they deal with our particular interests.
      6.45 p.m.
      That is the first reason why I think we should accept this Amendment—to make sure that we know what we are talking about, that we have considered how much it is necessary to bring into our law and whether there are reservations which we should make and ask our friends in Europe to consent to as concerning things which are particularly difficult for us—rabies regulations, and things of that sort; quite small nuts and bolts, but things which will occur.
      My second major point is this: if we are making these major changes in our legal system we ought at least to put ourselves in a position to know what our new law is. Subsection (2)(a) provides that we accept
      "the treaty relating to the accession of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community".
      Surely to heavens that at least could be put in a Schedule to the Bill. It is important that it should be, because while the Treaty of Accession has an English
      1508
      version—from accession, English is one of the official languages of the Market—the treaty which we are adopting does not have an official English version, because English was not at that time a language of the Market. Therefore, as I understand it, it will, according to our law, be possible—and may indeed be obligatory—to call expert witnesses as to the translation of these documents. When we are interpreting in a court of law just what a document means, the question of just how it is translated is highly important and also enormously controversial on many occasions.
      The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The point the hon. and learned Gentleman is discussing is more appropriate to Clause 3(1), just as his last point related to Clause 2(1) and not to the Amendment before the Committee.
      In fact, from the date of accession—1st January, 1973—all the treaties and all the legislation published in them will be the subject of authentic and agreed translations. It is hoped by that time to have all the decisions of the Community Court similarly translated. Clause 3(1) provides that our courts have regard to the Community Court decisions in that way, but by that point in time, looking at the question as a matter of law and not as a matter of fact—as the hon. and learned Gentleman's expert evidence, for example, would suggest—all the relevant documents will be available in authentic English translation for consideration as a matter of law, and not as a matter of fact. I make the point to direct the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the fact that this arises out of Clause 3(1).
      Mr. Paget: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I could not find in Clause 3(1) what gave authority to the translation. Perhaps the right time to deal with that matter will be when we reach that Clause. By that time all these volumes of regulations and treaties will have an agreed translation. If that is to be the case, why should not they be appended to this legislation when it becomes an Act, so that within our statute law we shall have that which our courts will have to apply? By the time the Act becomes operational, that is to say, when we join the Market, cannot a Schedule be provided so that there is available to our courts an official body of our law?

      1509
      We have had a great deal of discussion as to what is meant by subsection (2), which refers to:
      "any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities, with or without any of the member States, or entered into, as a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties, by the United Kingdom".
      To what words does the phrase "by the United Kingdom" apply? Does it apply to all? Is it any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities and also by the United Kingdom, or is it only the ancillary treaties which must be entered into by the United Kingdom? If there is an ancillary treaty which is not entered into by the United Kingdom, is it or is it not binding upon us? It is the most ineptly drafted Clause that I have ever read, and shows the extent of difficulties of interpretation which it will involve.
      This does not have to come into operation until the date of our accession to the Market, and by then it will be possible to examine these various laws to see which are ancillary. We should know whether it is to be added to a Schedule or will simply be a statutory order which will enable us to know what the law is. That is the enormous difficulty that we face.
      I urge the Government to reconsider this matter. There is no particular hurry over this point. They have all the time in the world to prepare a regulation which will show the laws that we are to make. The same applies to subsection (3), which seems to provide the optional procedure of putting in a regulation so that it shall be available for reference. If that is suitable for one regulation, why cannot it be suitable for the lot?
      Two years are available for the Government to draft these regulations—they do not have to provide them now—to enable us to have some knowledge of what the law will be when this legislation comes into operation. I should like to know what the situation will be before this legislation is passed. It would be of assistance to have an assurance that by the time it comes into operation it will be intelligible, so that we know that somebody in Government has considered in detail what changes they want to make.
      I am sure that nobody in the Government has considered the matter in detail. Nobody has been through these volumes with the detail required by the
      1510
      Committee so that we may examine just what changes are necessary and to see how they affect us. If we have to set it out in the statutory documents before the Clause becomes operational, at least we shall have the assurance that that much has been done. Therefore, if we are to have this legislation let us make it a little more intelligible and workable. This Amendment is certainly not a wrecking Amendment; it is one that should be supported by anybody who believes in this legislation.
      Mr. Enoch Powell: You will be aware, Sir Myer, that the Chairman of Ways and Means has indicated to the Committee that he will be submitting for decision not only Amendment No. 96, but also Amendment No. 81 which stands in my name; indeed, Amendments No. 81 and No. 82 essentially hang together. I want to direct the Committee's attention to those two Amendments, or rather to the vital four lines on page 2, namely, lines 5 to 8.
      I wish at the outset to get rid of one small and niggling drafting point which is perhaps worth mentioning. It is a general rule in the drafting of Acts of Parliament that one endeavours to avoid circularity, but it seems to me that in lines 7 and 8 on page 2 we have fallen into a circularity. We are defining a treaty and say, amongst other things, that it is a treaty
      "entered into, as a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties, by the United Kingdom".
      If we are to be quite clear what are these Treaties, with a capital "T", to which that treaty has to be ancillary in order that its being entered into by the United Kingdom shall make it one of the Treaties, with a capital "T", we find that we are involved in an infinite circularity which is contrary to the general rules of good draftsmanship. Whether that could be remedied by the insertion in line 8 of the word "other" before "Treaties" is rather a matter for a Parliamentary draftsman than for a humble Member of Parliament to say.
      I observe—this may be a curiosity of the Bill and may even be unique—that its interpretation depends on the use of a small or a capital letter—it is either "treaties" with a small letter or "Treaties" with a capital letter. But it

      1511
      is not the minutiae of drafting—though it is vital to get the minutiae of a Bill such as this absolutely right, if we can—with which the Committee is concerned, or indeed with which the Amendments in my name are concerned. The four lines to which those two Amendments refer, lines 5 to 8 on page 2, refer if not exclusively at any rate preponderantly to future treaties—in other words, to post-accession treaties. The right hon. and learned Member for East Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) may well have been right in saying that, as the Bill is drafted, they could and probably do somehow overlap and include pre-accession treaties, but I think the Committee will accept that the essence of the matter is that they are concerned with treaties to be made in the illimitable future from accession onwards, and that we are here considering to what parliamentary procedures, if any, all future treaties and their consequences should be subjected.
      [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
      7.0 p.m.
      The speech made yesterday by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and that which was made later by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy have greatly assisted hon. Members in the interpretation of these four lines in the context of subsection (3). One obvious pitfall that they saved us from is that of assuming that the two halves of lines 5 to 8 correspond with the two halves of subsection (3). Indeed, they do not. The true division of these future treaties both for the purposes of subsection (2) and for the purposes of subsection (3) is a different one, and it is a distinction which was clearly drawn by my hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend.
      The distinction is between, on the one hand, treaties entered into by the Community as such by itself and, on the other hand, treaties to which other countries including the United Kingdom are parties. It is to that sub-division that the sub-division of subsection (3) corresponds, in that where treaties are entered into by the Community alone, the procedure of the first half of subsection (3) applies, and where the United Kingdom is a party either with the Community or by itself,
      1512
      the second half of subsection (3) applies. I hope that is both clear and agreed by the Government and by both sides of the Committee.
      The treatment of these two classes of treaty is different in the Bill, and the arguments which apply to them are to a considerable extent different. I wish to take first the former of the two categories, the Community treaties which, as the Bill stands, will require to be recognised as such and to have their self-executing effect in the law of this country without any prior parliamentary procedure at all.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy pointed out that the Communities exercise this power only within defined limits and that the Communities cannot as such make treaties except within the limits of the treaty-making powers which the existing treaties leave open to them. He pointed out, therefore, that the scope of this first class is at any given time limited by whatever the treaties are at that particular time. He also pointed out that the consequences of those Community treaties are binding by virtue of the Treaty of Rome directly and automatically upon the member States. Upon those two propositions he grounded his defence of the first half of subsection (3) of the proposition that they should not require for their recognition or for their action any parliamentary procedures at all.
      With that I disagree. I believe that at the very least the consequences of Amendment No. 96 are not merely desirable but necessary. First—and here I am traversing ground which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and others have covered—it is surely necessary that the treaties made by the Communities which affect this country should be formally brought to the notice of the House of Commons and that the House of Commons should be obliged by Statute to take note of them. That is putting it at its very lowest.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was not entirely fanciful when he said that, like the god of the priests of Baal, we might at the time be journeying or hunting, while the Communities go on with their treaty-making from month to month and from year to year and the consequences come home to this country. Parliament at

      1513
      least should be called upon to register what is being done by the Communities and what impinges upon us. Even on that, the very narrowest, ground, there should at least be the requirement of a Resolution, which the first of the Amendments we are discussing would secure.
      The matter goes beyond that. The necessity of such parliamentary action carries with it, whatever may be the construction of the rules of order, the necessity of some degree of debate or explanation, if not apology. The House of Commons would not merely have to register the fact that this treaty had been made; it would require formally as a House of Commons to be given some information about it, and it would go hard with the House of Commons if it could not find a way to discuss it. "Ah, but", says my right hon. and learned Friend, "the House of Commons can discuss it, but, since under the basic treaty the provisions of Community treaties are binding automatically upon members of the Community, the House of Commons could not do anything about it".
      This is the dilemma which we have explored so many times. This is the cage against the bars of which we have found ourselves knocking many times already in these debates. But even my right hon. and learned Friend concedes—and this was the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees)—that there is nothing ultimately which prevents the House of Commons from saying "No", instead of the expected "Yes". It does not lie in the mouth of my right hon. and learned Friend, to say as he has done in previous days of debate, that we can throw out Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill to the evident destruction of the Treaty of Accession—he even went so far as to contemplate that we might carry some Amendments which were inconsistent with that Treaty—and then to say we cannot have a parliamentary procedure because if the answer were "No" it would place us in conflict with the treaty. We are all by now aware of that dilemma, but in no context so far, and I guess in no context that is to come, has it prevented the House of Commons either from debating the Bill now or from considering what ought to be the parliamentary procedures in the future.
      1514
      It may be—and the intervention of the hon. Member for Walton was valuable in this respect—that we shall often not be concerned in these Community treaties with minor matters; they may be major in their effect. They may be matters which if they were being considered independently by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would call for not just one day's debate but days of debate, and on which the House might be passionately divided. It is a small thing, in my opinion too small a thing and my Amendment goes beyond it, to ask that no parliamentary notice whatever should be taken of such acts when they are the acts of the Communities.
      I readily concede that that class of treaty, the Community treaty, is less grave in its impact upon the rights of the House of Commons than the other class; namely, the class to which the United Kingdom Government is a party and which attracts the procedure of the second half of subsection (3) in the Bill as it stands.
      The Solicitor-General, in patient response to a series of questions, has left us in no doubt that the fuure expansion, development and evolution of the Community, the future stages of progress towards that economic and political unity which is officially the objective of British membership, will take place by means of joint decisions recorded in instruments which for the purposes of this Act, if it ever becomes one, and this Clause will be treaties. So we are concerned with future stages each of which may be as momentous in their content as, if not more momentous than, this initial step of acceptance of the Treaty of Accession.
      We are being asked, but for subsection (3) as it stands, to accept with no further formal parliamentary procedure the possibility of the entire development from the present form of the Community to a political and economic unit. All there is in the Bill along all the successive stages of the road, all that is statutorily required by the Bill, is a Resolution. The Solicitor-General waxed almost lyrical yesterday in his praise of this safeguard—it was a wonderful safeguard; what more could the House want than the opportunity to pass a resolution? He rounded upon those of us who had felt there was something inadequate about a simple resolution and that, even if, as my right hon. Friend the Member for

      1515
      Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) pointed out earlier, we might be allowed, and probably would be allowed, by the Chair to have more than an hour and a half to discuss it, it is nevertheless somewhat inadequate and inapt to the consequences of such treaties as we are now thinking of.
      It is an almost unbelievable incomprehension of the procedure of this House to imagine that there can be any comparison between the control exerted by the necessity of carrying a resolution and by the necessity of carrying a Bill. What happy men Ministers of the Crown would be today, what happy men they would have been in days gone by, if the two things were equivalent, or almost so, which is my hon. and learned Friend's contention! He says, "Do not mind. It is all right. You have got a resolution." How blessed they would have thought themselves if all they needed to do, to achieve some of the immense purposes which would be achieved by the successive stages of evolution, was to come to this House and carry a Resolution—no Second Reading debate; no three days generously conceded on Second Reading for discussing, as my right hon and learned Friend said, the principle of the Bill, our opportunity, as he said, to examine the contents of the treaty; no such proceedings as we are now having, to examine whatever might impinge upon the law of this country and require legislative action. Clause by Clause, line by line no necessity of submission to the way in which this House can assert its will. For this House is a legislative chamber and a great part of its power derives from the exercise of its legislative function. It is not a Resolution-passing House. That is a very minor part of its functions. It is a legislating House which takes Bills, and, if it pleases, gives them a Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading. These two things are worlds apart.
      7.15 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General in the course of his encomium on the Resolution as a procedure for accepting for this country a treaty entered into by the United Kingdom which would further extend the legislation, taxation and the government of this country from overseas—from the Community—said:
      1516
      "I cannot imagine that it would not be open to the House and hon. Members to argue that we should not approve this Resolution because we do not like this treaty. … The question would be entirely at large, and it is important that it should be so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 1342.]
      I am surprised at the boldness, after the experiences of the last week or so, with which my hon. and learned Friend takes it upon himself, not at 24 hours' or a few weeks' notice but for years into the future, to predict what might be the view of the Chair upon the scope of debate upon a Resolution declaring that such and such a treaty is a treaty for the purposes of what would be Section 1 of this Act.
      I have said throughout that I believed my right hon. Friends were under a misapprehension about what we could debate on this Bill and that they really thought that we would be able to do more in considering the Bill, in examining the true and specific content of the treaty to which we are acceding. The Leader of the House was right when he said that no Government could say what would be in order.
      However, let me take the argument the other way round. Let us suppose that my hon. and learned Friend is right and that he has correctly divined the mind of the Chair one, five or ten years' hence. Let us be generous and suppose that the Patronage Secretary of the day and the Leader of the House would organise a whole day's debate and in the course of that it would be possible for the House to examine and discuss the contents of the treaty, which it has to be remembered could be a treaty as far-reaching as this one in its consequences. There is no limitation in the formulae of the Bill.
      If that is so, then a fortiori a Bill, a legislative act, would enable this House to examine the treaty. If it is accepted to be right and necessary, as surely it is, that this House should have the opportunity to examine a new extension, then let us not leave it to chance with a few hours' debate on a Resolution, to the chance that my hon. and learned Friend might be right in his estimate of the rules of order of the day. Let us make as sure as we can, subject to the embarrassments with which we have become already too familiar, even in the case of legislation, that the House of

      1517
      Commons in the future can form a safeguard to the further extension of the intrusion of the law, the taxation, and the policy of the Community into this country.
      Perhaps I might illustrate what is meant in practical terms by a simple hypothesis. Amongst the pre-accession treaties set out in Schedule 1 is the treaty establishing certain budgetary provisions signed at Luxembourg on 22nd April, 1970. I have no desire to get the Leader of the Opposition out of any of his difficulties and embarrassments, but if we had had this Bill before us at any time before April, 1970, that provision would not have been in the Schedule, nor should we have been assenting, in so far as we are allowed to assent at all by these proceedings, to the budgetary provisions of the Community arrived at in 1970.
      Let us consider what that Bill would have contained. It would not have contained Clause 2(3) in its present form. It would not have contained anything which is necessitated by or consequential upon the Luxembourg Agreement, and we would not have been discussing, as we have been able to discuss, the consequences of the "own resources" principle of the Community.
      If we allow this Clause to stand in its present form, those are matters which can never be debated in Parliament. There will never be a discussion such as that which we had on the Ways and Means Resolution. There will never be a discussion on whether these funds should be carried out of the country from the Consolidated Fund. There will never be any of that unless we can manage to compress it within the scope of a Resolution.
      It is a constitutional innovation of a portentous description that we should renounce the necessity of legislation for the future in respect of all the changes, small or great, which can be brought about in our law by future treaties made in connection with the European Community. Therefore, what I seek to do, and what I ask the Committee to agree to, is that, without prejudice to what we do about the existing law and the existing treaties, in future when there is a further movement forward, when there is a further change, when there is a new phase, the Government of the day, whichever they are, shall have to come back to this
      1518
      House as this Government had to come to this House at the time of accession.
      Surely that is a request so moderate that one might stand as astonished as Lord Clive stood on a previous occasion by the moderation of it; for if it were not before us in the form of a Bill one would hardly have credited that at any time this House would be asked to renounce its legislative function for the whole of the future.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends have an answer, of course. They say that we started too late in the process. They say that, long before it comes to a treaty either made by the Community under the first sub-division or entered into by the United Kingdom, all that is implicit in it will have been gone into in detail, debated over and over again and thrashed over so that it will be empty husks when it becomes a fact. Why, then, after all that should the House be bothered even with a Resolution, let alone with legislation?
      In the context of this argument, we made the acquaintance in a new form of the innovation of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the ad hoc committee, which underwent a considerable expansion and development for the purposes of the argument on Clause 1. The Committee will recall that it had been a rather modest creature on Second Reading. At that stage it had been concerned only with draft regulations and directives; that is to say, the earlier form of preparation of Community law which is either self-executing under Clause 2(1) or has to be executed by an Act of Her Majesty's Government in this country under Clause 2(2).
      In my right hon. and learned Friend's speech last night it was very different. The ad hoc committee was to go much further. It would consider how this House could be apprised of what was going on at every stage in the evolution of a new treaty or of a treaty to which eventually the United Kingdom might accede. The picture was drawn of one of Her Majesty's Ministers going off to Brussels, or wherever it might be, with the instructions of this House in his pocket—
      Mr. Baxter: Not of this House; of the ad hoc committee.
      Mr. Powell: Not quite. The hon. Gentleman has missed a very important stage to which I was about to come. The function of the ad hoc committee is only to make recommendations, to consider what would be the most suitable method of ensuring that this House is apprised of what is in store for it by way of regulations and directives and by way of treaties which will require no parliamentary action or which we shall be required to recognise as treaties by a Resolution of this House. That is what the ad hoc committee will do.
      However, the ad hoc committee does not exist, unless I have missed something on the tape in the last few hours while I have been in the Chamber. It has not been set up yet, let alone has it reported, let alone has this House considered in the light of its report what sort of apprisal of or control over the processes it can have. Yet it is on the ground that there is to be such a process as that some time in the future that we are asked to renounce our legislative power over the consequences of future treaties.
      My right hon. and learned Friend says that we should not worry, that there will be an ad hoc committee—one day. He says that that ad hoc committee will report—one day. No doubt this House will consider the recommendations of that ad hoc committee—one day. Whatever recommendations are accepted, if they are acceptable, may be put into effect—one day. But this is Clause 1 of the Bill. When we part with it we part with the heart of the matter and with the substance of legislative power. We cannot, out of mere self-respect, say, "Well, let it go, because there will be an ad hoc committee. One never knows, something might come out of it." That is no ground for this House to renounce its legislative power for the future over all that these treaties may bring. Something may come out of it, but, in the nature of things, nothing effective can come out of it.
      I say that for a very simple but fundamental reason. If the Bill is passed, the balance of power between the Executive and Parliament shifts dramatically and permanently. My right hon. and hon. Friends will appreciate that there can be no criticism of persons or of Administrations over this matter; this is
      1520
      far beyond the reach of any brief period of time of any particular Government. In future, when the Bill is passed, on all matters which concern the Community the Executive which the House will confront will no longer be alone the Executive of this country. Over and behind the Executive of this country, like a shadow standing behind the Minister at that Box, will be an Executive power which the House cannot get at. We may be afforded information about its doings, but it is an Executive power which we cannot call to account. At no stage—it is in the nature of things—can instructions be given by this House on Community matters in advance to a Minister of the Crown. That is why it is not possible to say that the prior processes of consideration, the gestation of treaties and all Community decisions, will afford this House the opportunity to exert its power and the safeguard to be the spokesman and protector of the subject.
      [Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]
      7.30 p.m.
      We shall be considering, in connection with subsequent Amendments and Clauses, what we are asked to do in that respect as to the present and the past. As to that, what is past is prologue. That prologue we shall be debating in the coming days and weeks. But now we are talking about the future—we are talking about an unknown and unlimited future—and, faced with that, this Committee has no right to do anything but to insist that the legislative agreement of the House of Commons to any extension of what we now know shall have to be sought in future as and when a future Government may consider that to be necessary.
      That is why I submit to the Committee—I think that this can equally be true of those who are for or against British membership of the Community—that we have the right to draw this line between the present and the future and say that for the future we must be asked, if the occasion arises, to legislate again. That is what these Amendments would achieve.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Great differences on policy matters exist between right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the Committee and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr.

      1521
      Powell). However, it is right that someone on this side should say that the right hon. Gentleman has demonstrated, with great intellectual quality and sincerity, a real concern for the rights of the House of Commons. I am sure that the Committee will have taken full note of what he said.
      The right hon. Gentleman concerned himself in the main with legislation which may come in the future. I think that in considering what we shall have to face we can get a good guide from what has happened in the past. Therefore, I hope that it will be in order for me to spend a little time referring to the body on legislation referred to in the Clause which we are required to swallow whole, lock, stock and barrel, without any debate whatsoever.
      I think that the decision that this little Bill should be the means whereby the whole package should be shovelled on to us, both past and future, was profoundly wrong, even from the Government's point of view. It is wrong to produce a small Bill and to say that, with the passage of the Bill, this whole mass of legislation, some small part of which I have beside me on the bench, is to be swallowed undebated and unexamined. Furthermore, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, not only are we to take wholesale all that has gone before, but we are to bind our hands for the future. I wonder when this extraordinary proposal really germinated in the Government's mind. I doubt whether the Committee would have thought it possible that this should be attempted.
      When we were in Government, I recall hack bench Conservative Members of Parliament fulminating against legislation which was not to be debated in the House. They suggested that it was a monstrous thing for the Government not to bring every piece of legislation for debate in this Chamber. Committees were established to make sure that the House had a fuller and better opportunity in future to examine legislation in greater detail, Clause by Clause and line by line.
      What has happened in this instance? Delegated legislation to an unimaginable degree is suddenly thrust upon us in this Bill, and in this one Clause we are asked to swallow not only what may come to us in future but the whole body of
      1522
      legislation which it has taken years for the Community to acquire, and which we have had no part in framing. This comes to us as it is and we have no say in the matter. We have to make the treaty as it is. So from this Bill, which is the only thing that we have to debate, we go to this document, and this whole document goes into the Bill. We cannot amend one Article of it, so the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tells us. From this there stems a large number of other—
      Mr. Rippon rose—
      Mr. Jenkins: I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment. From this there stems a large number of other major treaties, and from those treaties there stems what is called the secondary legislation. We are to accept all this lock, stock and barrel. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman now wishes to intervene, I will give way.
      Mr. Rippon: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. However, he referred to a document. I wondered which document it was. Yesterday—I am sure, inadvertently—the hon. Gentleman misled the Committee on the so-called draft directive on the cinematograph industry which was formally translated, but not binding. I want to be sure this time that he is not suggesting that there is something here which none of us knows about.
      Mr. Jenkins: This applies to the legislation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has presented to us. This document states:
      "This pre-accession series of English texts of the secondary legislation of the European Communities is published to show how the secondary legislation, as it stood on 10 November 1971, would apply to the United Kingdom when the Communities are enlarged. Notes at the end of the individual instruments indicate the adaptations which have been agreed or are under discussion with the Communities.
      Authentic English texts which will apply after the United Kingdom's accession to the Communities will be published in due course in an English Language Edition of the Official Journal of the European Communities."
      Even now this is not the authentic text. I am prepared to accept it as such—I think it likely that the text will vary in small degrees—just as the document which I quoted yesterday was the report of a draft which is going through rather

      1523
      than the draft itself. This may be nearer to the final draft than the document which I quoted yesterday. However, even this is not the final authenticated draft. None of these 42 documents is the final draft. However, I am prepared to accept that to all intents and purposes these are unlikely to be changed. The document of 28th July is also likely to go through in the form indicated.
      However, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, the Community is active all the time, so that even as we stand here meetings are taking place in various parts of the Continent, and legislation is going through which we shall have to accept lock, stock and barrel, with very little protection against legislation which is inimical and which, if we had a free hand, no hon. Members on either side would dream of passing.
      Mr. Deakins: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have not yet told the Committee what is the position of the secondary legislation of the Communities passed between 10th November, 1971, and 22nd January, 1972, and under which part of Clause 1 (3) such treaties would be presented to the House of Commons. Would they rank as Community treaties? If so, is it not incredible—almost monstrous—that the Committee has no knowledge of them? It has knowledge of the 42 volumes of secondary legislation and 10 volumes of Community treaties, but there are other things that we know not of. One suspects that not even the Government know about them yet.
      Mr. Jenkins: The further we examine this situation the less are we surprised. As my hon. Friend says, we are not being asked to swallow just legislation that we know something about; we are also being asked to take on trust legislation that we know nothing about. We are doing something which I never thought the Committee would ever contemplate. Many of those who may favour the principle of entering the Common Market if the terms are right equally never contemplated, I am sure, that we would go in like this, on our hands and knees. This is deeply repugnant. I hope that our Amendments, which seek to reserve to this Chamber the powers which are traditional to it—of debate, discussion and examination—will
      1524
      be carried. Whether we go in or not, surely we should not go in handcuffed.
      I should like to illustrate the argument by citing one or two of the documents that I have here as examples of the sort of thing that we have to take en bloc. This secondary legislation might be called tertiary legislation, because most of it stems first of all from the treaty and sometimes from a secondary treaty.
      These are 13 documents of general policy. There is one called "Budgetary Policy", which lays down the levies to be paid to the Coal and Steel Community and many other things as well. There is commercial policy, divided into two sections, all of which should be examined in detail and all of which is very important. There are also two sections on Community institutions. All of this will affect us very closely if we get into the Community—as I hope we shall not. Then there is the laying down of the most rigid competition. The form of competition laid down in the treaty, of which these Amendments seek to regain control, is savage. When the time is appropriate—it is not now—we shall want to examine this part of the treaty and what stems from it in considerable detail.
      We shall also have to take all these provisions about customs questions, lock stock and barrel, without being allowed to examine them in any detail. The same applies to the provisions on economic affairs, energy policy, Euratom, and social affairs—the last of which deserves examination in the utmost detail. The same applies to taxation. These provisions take away one of our most cherished rights—the right to determine the nature of the taxation that we impose on the citizens of this country. In future, not just its nature but its level is to be determined from outside. There are also 42 further documents, relating in the main to aspects of food and agricultural policy.
      7.45 p.m.
      The Committee should not be asked to take on these provisions without close and detailed examination. I especially hope that it will pass Amendment No. 147, which seeks to give the House of Commons the right to examine this legislation in detail instead of having to accept it en bloc. Then the Committee

      1525
      could debate the issue whether we go in or not on the basis of examining what we are taking on, instead of having to swallow it like a dose of castor oil.
      The Solicitor-General rose—
      Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I sat through yesterday's debates on the first Amendment and have sat here all day today without being called once, while other hon. Members have been called twice. To the best of my recollection, I have never raised a point like this before, but I ask for your consideration, Mr. Godman Irvine, to be called before the Solicitor-General replies.
      The Temporary Chairman: It is the normal practice to call first one side and then the other, or first a supporter of one proposition and then a supporter of another. If a Front Bench spokesman wants to speak, it is usual to call him.
      Mr. Fell: On a point of order. Would it be possible for my hon. and learned Friend to give some assurance that the debate will not be closed after he has spoken?
      Mr. English: Further to that point of order. I am sure, Mr. Godman Irvine, that if we knew that you were going to call all the hon. Members concerned we would not be particularly worried in what order you called them. But I would like you to pass on to the other occupants of the Chair—since this difficulty is possibly caused by the rotation of people in the Chair—that, over the period of days, the circumstances of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) have become well known to us all, and that they apply to others. It seems a little strange, to say the least, if some hon. Members are called on every Amendment while other hon. Members are sitting in the Chamber who have not been called on any.
      I am sure that no one occupant of the Chair is responsible for this, but I hope that the Chair, especially in the case of overlapping Amendments like these, will take this phenomenon into account and try to rectify it.
      The Temporary Chairman: Very often, difficulties such as this which are foreseen, do not occur.
      Mr. Deakins: Further to that point of order. Is it not the normal practice for the Chair to call a Front Bench speaker at this stage, or slightly later, with the express purpose of answering the debate and winding it up? Are you calling the hon. and learned Gentleman for that purpose, Mr. Godman Irvine?
      The Temporary Chairman: I am calling the hon. and learned Gentleman because he wants to speak.
      Mr. Mendelson: Further to that point of order. After experience of the Industrial Relations Bill and many others, I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman is usually courteous enough to allow hon. Members who have sat here all day to make their contribution before he attempts to reply. It is passing strange that he is not acting in the same way today.
      The Temporary Chairman: Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I was in the Chair during debates on that Bill from time to time, so perhaps the same practice will apply here.
      Mr. Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. One can obviously envisage a situation in which the speeches from the benches opposite on this matter will be rather less frequent than the speeches, or the desire to speak, from this side of the Committee. I therefore hope that no sort of automatic calling of Front Bench spokesmen will take place because nobody apart from the Solicitor-General rose to speak on the benches opposite.
      Some extremely serious points have been put by my hon. Friends, and I confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) has been trying to get into the debate for the last two days. He has a number of important points to put to the Solicitor-General, but we cannot be sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will wish to speak again later in reply to my hon. Friend, should my hon. Friend have an opportunity to speak.
      The Temporary Chairman: This is a matter entirely for the discretion of the Chair. The subject might be left there. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
      Mr. Spearing: Further to the point of order raised with you by my hon. Friends,

      1527
      Mr. Godman Irvine I support their submission because I, too, for a substantial proportion of the debates on both days, have been sitting here waiting to speak. I have specific points to raise with the Solicitor-General. If the Amendment—
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. We had better get on. Then there might be more time for hon. Members to make their speeches.
      The Solicitor-General: I wish to deal with some of the many points that have been raised in discussing this series of Amendments. I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), who has temporarily vanished from our midst, and the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), both of whom have been endeavouring to intervene on a number of occasions. One must, however, see the picture as a whole; there will be further Amendments on which they will be able to speak—[Interruption.]
      Hon. Gentlemen opposite must allow me to finish a sentence. I was about to say that there will be further Amendments closely related to those under discussion; indeed, in some cases on almost identical points. There is a group of Amendments, previously grouped with those under discussion, which will deal with almost exactly the point we are considering. There are Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West which are due to be called.
      One must also bear in mind—I say this without any disrespect, Mr. Godman Irvine—the lack of a continuous flow of information between successive occupants of the Chair about, for example, the fact that some hon. Members have intervened in more than one of these debates and also—again, without any disrepect to the Chair—the fact that the points they have been making have not all been truly related to the Amendments that we are endeavouring to discuss. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful".]
      The points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) were related to Clause 3(1), whereas the points made by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) were related more to the secondary legislation,
      1528
      which is the subject of Clause 2(1), than to the Amendments which are under discussion. I hope, therefore, that they will forgive me if I do not deal with those points, save to make it clear that the hon. Member for Putney was quoting yesterday from the French version of a document which—I am sure he was not doing so intentionally—was not a good one from which to quote because it was a draft directive not in anything like the form in which it would be adopted as part of Community law. In other words, it is still under consideration within the Community.
      The hon. Member for Putney was quoting from the European Community Bulletin, published in French, and it does not in that form amount to legislation. In fact, English translations of it have been made available by the Department of Trade and Industry to those interested in the subject. But it is, I emphasise, no more than a draft, and once we become members of the Community even drafts will appear in the Official Journal in the English as well as in any other language. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is not right to describe it as legislation.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy devoted most of his observations when he intervened last night to the question of Community treaties or treaties made under the Community's treaty-making power, and I shall have something to say about treaties involving member States.
      It might be of assistance if early in my remarks I tried to remove some of the misunderstanding arising from the wording of particular phrases in Clause 1. The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) asked what was meant by the words "any other treaty" in subsection (2)(b), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) returned to the point en passant.
      The answer is that those words relate to future treaties. If one looks at the preceding provision, which begins by identifying the pre-accession treaties, one sees that those described in Part I of Schedule 1 begin with the items referred to in Clause 1(2)(a) and (b), while if one turns to subsection (3) one finds there the exposition of any treaty entered into after 22nd January, 1972. In other words,

      1529
      the same wording appears in Clause 1(2), which says:
      "any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities, with or without any of the member States, or entered into, as a treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties, by the United Kingdom ".
      It is clear, therefore, that "any other treaty" refers to any future treaty.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said there was a degree of circularity about the definition. I hesitate to cross swords even on a matter of geometry or trigonometry with my right hon. Friend because I suspect that his knowledge in this sphere is as extensive as his knowledge of the classics or the Welsh language.
      My impression is that the definition is not a circular one; "any other treaty" or any
      "treaty ancillary to any of the Treaties"
      comes within the definition because it is ancillary to the first group of treaties as originally defined, particularly with reference to the pre-United Kingdom State treaties about which my right hon. Friend was talking.
      For a new treaty by the United Kingdom
      "ancillary to any of the treaties"
      to become attached to and absorbed into Community treaties, it would have to be the subject of an affirmative Resolution. It would then be taken into the train of vehicles, so to speak, and it could then be a candidate to which the further treaty could be attached, but the definition is of the linear rather than of the circular variety.
      Mr. Powell: I take my hon. and learned Friend's point about geometry and linearity, but my difficulty arose because in seeking the meaning of the word "treaties" in subsection (2)(b) one is referred back to the definition in subsection (3), as part of which one finds the phrase used. That is my difficulty, and I imagine that my hon. and learned Friend will wish to look at the matter again.
      The Solicitor-General: I think I have understood my right hon. Friend's difficulty, and I think I have, having understood it, dispelled it, but, plainly, I have not done so to his satisfaction. I will, therefore, look again at the interesting
      1530
      geometric exposition that he has given to the House.
      I come to some of the other verbal points that have been raised. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) asked what was the significance of the words
      "with or without any of the members States"
      A more appropriate occasion for considering this will be when we debate Amendment No. 97, which proposes to add the words "or other States". His impression was that it was to make it plain that the latter provision in subsection (2)(b) applied to
      "any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities, with or without any of the member States"
      whether or not the member State was a co-signatory to such a treaty. That is the intention of the words. The phrase is used to avoid any doubt, and if these words were left out it might suggest that such a treaty, in conjunction with another, was a different kind of treaty. These words are intended to make the position clear.
      Mr. Jay: It would not alter the meaning of the Clause? It is for the removal of an hypothetical doubt?
      8.0 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General: I think it might alter the meaning of the Clause, and that is why it is there. It is there because someone might argue—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) follows very attentively and I do my best to explain. I am explaining this point, at least to the satisfaction of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North.
      Mr. Heffer: It is very interesting.
      The Solicitor-General: Turning to other points raised by the right hon. Gentleman about subsection (4) and the meaning of the word "treaty" and what is embraced by that word, he might agree that when we debate Amendments Nos. 29 and 31 that will be a more appropriate place to deal with the points which he put to me. Shortly, the reference there to "treaty" has to be taken with the reference to "treaty" in the early parts of the Clause. If one applies the ordinary meaning of the word, particularly in the context of the principles of international law in which they would be applied, an

      1531
      international agreement could not ordinarily include an agreement other than one between States and persons capable of entering contracts. It would not include an international oil company's treaty. If one looks at the Vienna Convention on Treaties, one sees that a treaty has to be in writing rather than oral, but, of course, it is a point, again if one looks at the Vienna Convention, that a treaty can be found in an exchange of letters or documents. All those points we can look at more closely when we come to the Amendments which actually raise them, but I thought it would be helpful to the Committee if I gave an indication of how these words should be interpreted.
      Mr. Jay: To be quite clear, the Solicitor-General is saying that it has to be an agreement between Governments and it has at least to be written and cannot be altered. Is that correct?
      The Solicitor-General: Yes, I say between governments, between persons who are international legal persons, which can include States or organisations of States in certain circumstances, such as, for example, the European Community, which is an international person and, I think, such bodies as the International Labour Organisation or the United Nations. It has to be a person in international law and the agreement has to be in writing. I hope that is sufficient—I do not mean sufficient for the right hon. Gentleman to be going on with, but—
      Mr. Jay: There is one other—
      The Solicitor-General: If I may be allowed to move on because now I am giving a kind of hors d'oeuvre of answers to questions which the right hon. Gentleman can raise again when we come to the Amendments put down to subsection (4).
      Sir D. Walker-Smith: Is it not a person in public international law to whom my hon. and learned Friend refers? He says that it would not be an international oil company, for example. It is only a person in public international law. Is that right?
      The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. That is the effect of what I mean, and
      1532
      that is comprised by the phrase "any international agreement", an agreement which would qualify as an international agreement, entered into by a person in public international law.
      I believe the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South also asked how the past treaties are identified. I wish to respond to that. They are, of course, identified with the principal accession treaties by reference to the categories listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1, and the seventh category is listed by reference to the Appendix of the first volume of the Accession Treaty and reproduced in the 10 volumes of 4th February.
      One comes to the question of how subsection (3) will work. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) pointed out, and as I said at the beginning of the debate on Thursday last week, the first part is intended to be evidential in order to make plain, in any situation where doubt might arise, that a treaty was to be regarded as one of the treaties as defined in this Clause. I think I dealt last night with the proposition of the extent to which there was to be a safeguard. That was in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who said that it was a threat rather than a safeguard. I did not go beyond asserting that it is not so much a safeguard as an evidential provision.
      Mr. Deakins: I am not a lawyer, but I should like the Solicitor-General to explain why a court of law should have more regard to an Order in Council defining a Community treaty than to an Act of Parliament, such as this Measure may be, which defines treaties and sets them out, or shows where they can be found.
      The Solicitor-General: If one considers the question of whether or not a given future international agreement does or does not constitute a treaty within this complex, it is easier and not, I think, unusual for that question to be answered in relation to that agreement by means of an Order in Council. It is for convenience as a matter of evidence that it should not be necessary to go before a court and say, "Is this or is it not an international agreement which should or should not come within the meaning of Clause 1(4)?"

      1533
      I think the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies) challenged the extent to which I referred to the Anisminic decision yesterday as justifying the view that an Order in Council under the first part of subsection (3) could be challenged. I must confess that I react with some lack of enthusiasm to the point he put in his speech today when he said that it was almost irresponsible for the Solicitor-General not to have a copy of the Anisminic decision in his knapsack to help him if any point might arise. I was doing my best, and I hope that the Committee understood the answer I made to the point that was put to me. I expressed the view, which seems to have been accepted by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South and then by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East, that the Anisminic decision justified the view that an Order in Council which went outside the scope permitted by subsection (3) could be challenged in the courts.
      I do not wish to overstate that or to present it as a defence that could cover a wide range of territory, but I stand quite firmly on the proposition that that case supports that conclusion. Referring to a passage from the judgment, although the Anisminic case referred to a tribunal,—the Foreign Compensation Tribunal—the principle there set out refers to anyone exercising a power conferred upon them by Statute. The fact that this deals with a power to be exercised by Her Majesty by Order in Council does not mean that it is an exercise of the prerogative here but, by means of an Order in Council, of a power conferred by Statute. In these circumstances, the Anisminic principle applies. To quote one sentence from the speech of Lord Wilberforce:
      "Equally, though this is not something that arises in the present case, there are certain fundamental assumptions which, without explicit restatement in every case, necessarily underlie the remission of power to decide".
      Within the frontiers of the decision, if the decision taken in respect of an Order in Council was manifestly outside the field of Community treaties, of course if it was taken in bad faith, it could be challenged under that decision. I do not wish to put it higher than that but to justify, if I can, the proposition which the hon. Member for Llanelly seemed to challenge.
      1534
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East asked how far the first part of subsection (3) would apply to future Community treaties. The answer is that they, too, could be the subject of Orders in Council under the subsection. But—and this is the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy last night—future Community treaties can only be made within the scope of existing treaties. I shall come to the extending point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West later.
      Community treaties can often be made, particularly if they are in the commercial field, without having any effect on the law of this country as a member State at all, and they have the same quality as other international commercial agreements. In that respect a future Community treaty would not need legislation, any more than a future international treaty of this country would need legislation at present if it was having no effect on domestic law.
      The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South challenged to some extent the value of the right of apprisal which would flow from such recommendations as might be made by the ad hoc committee to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy referred. But it is important to recognise—before I return to the point in this particular context—the extent to which, notwithstanding the Ponsonby Rules, many treaties, quite apart from other actions of the Executive Government, can now be made and take place without Parliament having any right of apprisal at all. So in the field with which we are concerned the opportunity for the ad hoc committee to consider that is not something to be lightly disregarded.
      I return to the other half of the question; namely, treaties entered into by the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Llanelly returned to the point he made yesterday, suggesting that a treaty entered into by the United Kingdom as ancillary to the Community treaties would not need to be specified under the second part of subsection (3). I have tried to understand how he advances that argument. I fail to see how he can do so. As everyone has acknowledged, a treaty to which the United Kingdom is not a party can

      1535
      be specified under the first part of subsection (3) without any need for affirmative Resolution. If one looks at the second part of subsection (3), one finds that, as I said yesterday
      "a treaty entered into by the United Kingdom after the 22nd January, 1972 … shall not be so regarded."
      —in other words, shall not be regarded as one of the Community treaties—
      "unless it is so specified, nor be so specified unless a draft … has been approved. Shall not be so regarded"—
      that is to say, regarded as a Community treaty within the definition of the words "Community treaties", so that it does not come into the complex from which, for example, rights, powers and liabilities can apply under Clause 2(1) unless it is brought within the concept of Community treaties. It cannot so be brought without being specified in an order which is subject to the affirmative Resolution of the House of Commons.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: In that case we can read Clause 2(1) as meaning "by or under the Community treaties". The words "Community treaties" could be inserted there.
      The Solicitor-General.I am glad that the hon. Member raises that point. Line 15 on page 1 contains the words "Treaties" or "Community Treaties". If I may explain that before the hon. Member interrupts me again, the point is that for each of these treaties—the "Treaties" or "the Community Treaties", which we are now discussing, I think that the hon. Member will find throughout the rest of the Bill that the reference is always to the "treaties" and that there are no later references—I may have overlooked one—to the concept of the "Community Treaties". The phrase "Community Treaties" is included in the definition Clause here so as to be of use in other Bills and legislation at other times.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: Reverting to the first part of subsection (3)—that is, treaties not entered into by the United Kingdom—the Solicitor-General's right hon. and learned Friend, in answer to my question last night, said that even those were not specified. The rights arising under them would become incor-
      1536
      corporated into English law. What I cannot understand is why, in relation to the first part of the subsection, it is not necessary to specify a treaty as a Community Treaty for the purpose of Clause 2(1) but it is necessary to specify it for the purpose of Clause 2(1) in relation to the second part of subsection (3). The first part is surely the same as the second part.
      The Solicitor-General: I can explain the reason for that.
      Mr. Heffer: This is legal argument; it is not politics.
      The Solicitor-General: I really cannot win, Mr. Godman Irvine. When I try to deal seriously with the points raised by hon. Members, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton interrupts, from almost a recumbent position.
      The answer to that question is that the first part of subsection (3) is evidential. As my right hon. and learned Friend said last night, a treaty could be a treaty within the meaning of the Bill without there having been an Order in Council, and that follows from the nature and quality of a Community treaty. I shall return to that matter later. But so far as concerns a treaty coming into the treaty complex to which the United Kingdom is a party, that kind of treaty is firmly subject to the second part of subsection (3), so as to set beyond doubt the right of both Houses of Parliament to have an affirmative Resolution in respect of United Kingdom treaties. It is in order to introduce the safeguard that we have been discussing in respect of United Kingdom treaties that the second part of subsection (3) exists.
      Mr. Ronald King Murray: While the Solicitor-General is on that point, he mentioned yesterday that in his view treaties falling into the second half of subsection (3), into that category, could include some of those which fall into the first two lines of lines 5 to 8, that is to say, some treaties which were to be subjected to affirmative Resolution by subsection (3) could be of the commercial type, to which this country was merely a co-signatory, essentially commercial treaties which did not affect the internal law of this country? Is he right about that?
      The Solicitor-General: Yes, I am. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for

      1537
      Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) can sometimes launch that kind of gibe at me, but on this occasion I am confident.
      Lines 5 and 6 are primarily intended to cover treaties entered into by the Community—Community Treaties. But in some of those cases the member States, including the United Kingdom, would be co-signatories. Once the United Kingdom becomes a co-signatory it becomes one in respect of which the second part of subsection (3) operates. Any treaty of which the United Kingdom is a signatory, whether one entered into by the Communities—that is, as co-signatories—or one entered into by the United Kingdom with other member States without the Community, comes under the second half of subsection (3). So the protection in the second part of subsection (3) arises in respect of treaties in which the United Kingdom participates.
      Mr. Murray: The Solicitor-General has made a very important point. Does that mean that in the case of commercial treaties, which are essentially commercial treaties affecting the Community as a whole and not involving internal law at all, the effect of this proposition would be to give the United Kingdom, although it is embodied as a co-signatory only, on a technical ground, the right of veto, so that it could veto all these commercial treaties if the House of Commons cared to do so?
      The Solicitor-General: I move to the next possible categorisation to explain that, because the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton referred to the agreements which exists between the Community and Greece and Spain. I did not want to spend a great deal of time on this general discussion, but they conveniently illustrate the distinction that I want to make here. The agreement of the Community with Greece is an association agreement. It is made under Article 238 and is one to which member States are a party. Largely because of its nature, it extends outside the truly commercial field. The Community's agreement with Spain is made under Article 113 and is a trade agreement. It does not have member States as co-signatories. Broadly speaking, agreements within the strict trade scope of that Article do not have member States as co-signatories. They do when they are regarded as having gone outside
      1538
      that, as in the case of the Greek agreement, when the member State becomes a co-signatory.
      Sir D. Walker-Smith: I raised this matter yesterday. I do not think that it was referred to late last night, although we have not as yet had the HANSARD record of the proceedings after Ten o'clock. Do we get any help from the Treaty of Rome or anywhere else as to the circumstances in which a Community treaty will be reinforced by member States being co-signatories. I have not been able to find anything in the Articles to which we have been referring—Articles 228 and 114, and so on. Can my hon. and learned Friend help on this?
      The Solicitor-General: I will answer my right hon. and learned Friend so far as I can at the moment. As I understand it, the position is that there are certain treaties—for example, those under Articles 113 and 114—which are plainly within the treaty-making power of the Communities if they do not go outside that, as the Community's Spain Treaty does not go outside it. That is made by the Community without participation by member States, but, as a matter of practice, if it appears that the scope of the treaty being made goes, or may go, outside the defined area, the member States are invited to participate in order to place their imprimatur as individual member States alongside that of the Community.
      I do not wish to say any more than that about the Spanish and Greek agreements at the moment, save only that the scope of the Greek agreement is, in its origin, intended to lead to association. As a result of the Greek coup in April, 1967, the Community froze its side of the E.E.C.-Greece association agreement. The freezing of the agreement did not affect the preferential treatment given to Greek products entering the Community, but it put an embargo, for example, on European investment bank loans to the Greeks, and it held up negotiations on the harmonisation of agricultural policies. The Greeks have continued the tariff reductions required by the agreement but the part of the agreement intended to lead towards association has been frozen.
      On the Spanish Agreement, I know that hon. Members, at least on the Opposition side, have harsh views about the

      1539
      Spanish Government. But this is a commercial agreement. It recognises that Spain is an important and rapidly growing market for United Kingdom exports. If this were not a commercial agreement, the benefits of which we could enjoy after accession, the agreement would give E.E.C. exports of many kinds, apart from our own, preferential tariff margins against us. Our major European competitors in the Spanish market are all in the E.E.C., and if we did not share the preferences they have already got there exporters would face growing competition and risk losing sales. But this is a much narrower kind of agreement. I do not want to say anything more at this stage.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) raised the question of the Ponsonby Rule and its modification or possible application in the matters that we are now discussing. He quoted from statements by Mr. Ponsonby to the House when the rules were enunciated. I hope that he will agree that when analysed they are more compact in their application than some of the phrases used in the House then. They are summarised in "Erskine May", on page 251:
      "When a treaty requires ratification, the Government do not usually proceed with ratification until a period of twenty-one days has elapsed from the date on which the text of such a treaty was laid before Parliament by Her Majesty's command. This practice is subject to modification, if necessary, when urgent or other important considerations arise".
      I have always wondered whether when Mr. Ponsonby uttered these magic words, he knew that the name Ponsonby Rule would become so well known—because his speech seems to have been rather informal.
      Sir D. Walker-Smith: I think that he would have put it better if he had known that!
      The Solicitor-General: I respectfully agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. It will be noted that the rule is not invariable. It applies only where a treaty requires ratification. It does not apply to treaties which come into force on signature. Treaties entered into by the Community alone within the existing treaty-making powers of the Communities do not require ratification. As
      1540
      Article 228 makes plain, they are binding upon member States and they are not within the terms of the Ponsonby Rule. Treaties entered into by the United Kingdom with or without any of the Communities would be within the Ponsonby Rule if they required ratification, and they would also be within the requirements of the second part of subsection (3). So the Ponsonby Rule can be an unnecessary duplication, since the Order in Council procedure would apply to treaties to which the United Kingdom was a party, whether or not they required ratification.
      The problem is the extent to which the Ponsonby Rule, or anything like it, can be made to apply to Community treaties as opposed to member States treaties. That is the kind of problem which my right hon. and learned Friend indicated last night would need to be considered in the context of the way in which Community treaties are actually made, by the ad hoc committee along with the other matters that it would be considering.
      Mr. Michael Foot: We are particularly suspicious about the whole proposition of this ad hoc committee, particularly in view of the way in which it has been presented in these debates. It seems to be something thought up at the last moment to get the Government out of a lot of difficulties. Can the Solicitor-General say whether, at any stage in the Bill—and, if so, at which stage—the Government are proposing Amendments to the Bill to make sure that the statements that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made about the ad hoc committee and its rôle will be incorporated in the legislation? We would then be able to see whether the ad hoc committee fulfils the claims which the Government spokesmen are making for it.
      The Solicitor-General: The point that I am making, and the point to which the ad hoc committee is directed, was raised some time back by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South. If we had come forward with proposals, designed so far as they could be designed to meet this kind of point without having allowed Parliament, through an ad hoc committee, to consider them, we should have been accused of pre-empting the kind of conclusions that might have

      1541
      emerged from that committee's consideration of the problems. The Bill as it is presented gives effect to our obligations under the treaties to which we are acceding. Whether anything emerges from the considerations of the ad hoc committee we shall have to see.
      [Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Foot: The Government are engaged in putting proposals to the Opposition, asking whether we would be prepared to enter arrangements to set up this committee and to have members on it to consider these matters and, presumably, to report to the House about the procedures to be followed. We are extremely suspicious about that proposition for the reasons I have given, but we have to decide whether to participate. We shall have to decide whether we are to take account of the recommendations which come from the ad hoc committee for inclusion in a Bill such as this. If the Solicitor-General is not making a statement about it here and now, will he undertake at an extremely early stage in the further consideration of the Bill to make a full statement about what is intended, what the Government hope will come out of the ad hoc committee and how that will be incorporated in the Bill? Or is it just a pious expression about some kind of committee to which these matters may be referred in a most amorphous way? That would be an unsatisfactory way in which to deal with matters which the Solicitor-General himself has described as important.
      It appears to us that every time the Government got into difficulty and whenever the Ponsonby Rules are raised, or some other matter of that kind is raised, they suggest referring it to the ad hoc committee. That is an extraordinary way in which to proceed with a Bill of this major importance, which we are told the Government have considered and which they say could have been presented only in this way. Surely this whole matter should have been thought out long ago.
      The Solicitor-General: The Bill is presented as a legislative vehicle for what is necessary. I should not like to trespass on what discussions may or may not have been taking place through the
      1542
      usual channels, but the ad hoc committee is a means whereby Parliament may be consulted about the best way in which these matters may be handled.
      Mr. Foot: I may seem tedious to the hon. and learned Gentleman by interrupting again, but the Government apparently lay great stress on the ad hoc committee and the report which may come from it about how to deal with certain parts of the Bill. If they lay such stress on it, let them consider the matter completely and tell the House exactly which matters are to be referred to the ad hoc committee, how they are to be referred and what sort of amendment to the Bill will be required to translate into legislative form the kind of recommendations which the Government would like to see from the ad hoc committee. Certainly the Opposition will not enter into general discussions in the vaguest possible way. We want to know what are the propositions. On what the Government say about that we shall have to decide whether to participate in any ad hoc committee.
      The Solicitor-General: I shall not respond to the hon. Gentleman's question on that now. My right hon. and learned Friend explained last night and in the Second Reading debate what would be the function of the ad hoc committee as proposed.
      Sir Robin Turton: When my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned this matter in the Second Reading debate he made no suggestion that the ad hoc committee, which was to be a device of procedure, would be a channel by which draft treaties could be examined, which implied a replacement of the Ponsonby Rule. The Ponsonby Rule was under debate in the House long after Ponsonby. I remember its being debated for one whole day when I was an Under-Secretary and I remember its being stressed how important it was that major treaties, although perhaps not minor treaties, should be debated in Parliament. That is what is being denied under the Bill as drafted.
      The Solicitor-General: No. I do not want to go back over the ground that I have covered already. I appreciate what my right hon. Friend is saying about the extent to which the Ponsonby

      1543
      Rules have been analysed and debated. As he says, they are far from clear. The point that I am making is that any treaties to which the United Kingdom is to be a party and which are made under the Clause would require an affirmative Resolution, in respect of an Order in Council, by both Houses. That is plainly provided for and that is wider than the Ponsonby Rules, because it will apply whether or not the treaties require ratification.
      The problem arises in relation to treaties which are made by the Communities and to which the United Kingdom would not be a party.
      One cannot go beyond the proposition that by Article 228 they are binding on member States. On the machinery whereby, and the extent to which, Parliament can be apprised of them and can consider the most suitable arrangements for dealing with them, I cannot go further than to say that they would be considered by the ad hoc committee.
      Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. The Committee is placed in an extremely difficult position. The hon. and learned Gentleman continues to refer to an ad hoc committee which does not exist. At present there seems to be no attempt to make an agreement to set it up, and there is no guarantee that the Opposition will agree to its being established. Yet we are told that it is essential in relation to the whole Bill. Therefore, surely it is impossible for the Committee to continue its consideration of the Bill until such time as the Government explain precisely what the functions of the ad hoc committee will be and when they intend to introduce Amendments to the Bill to define the position of that committee.
      Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. All that we are basically asking is that the Solicitor-General should stop referring to a non-existent committee, or should refer the Bill to it.
      Mr. Brynmor John: Further to that point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. Is not a third possibility that the Solicitor-General should give—as he has carefully refrained from giving—an undertaking that the Government will amend the Bill to implement anything
      1544
      that the ad hoc committee reports favourably upon? If it is to lay down a procedure it thinks the House should adopt in examining the treaties, the Government should undertake to implement that procedure before we go any further. The Solicitor-General says that he is merely introducing a Bill to give effect to our entry, but in subsection (3) he is giving effect to a parliamentary procedure. The fact is that nothing in the Bill recognises the ad hoc committee. We have no assurance that any of its recommendations will ever be implemented.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: What the Government decide to do on these matters, interesting though they are, is not a question for me. The Government must decide for themselves. No point of order has arisen.
      The Solicitor-General: I cannot give an undertaking of the kind for which the hon. Gentleman asks in respect of the ad hoc committee's recommendations. The Government have made proposals, which are no doubt being discussed through the usual channels, offering the prospect of involvement by Parliament in all these aspects, including the aspects of secondary legislation made by the Communities' proposals, which, until the very recent appointment of the committee under Lord Brooke, go beyond the extent to which Parliament has been able to be involved in such secondary legislation at home. It is not acceptable for the hon. Gentleman to say, "We will not have any part of this"—[Interruption.] That is what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton implied. The Government are doing their best to give Parliament the opportunity to consider these matters. I had best leave the matter there for the moment.
      Mr. Powell: May I put a point to my hon. and learned Friend, in no contentious spirit? I understood his point to be that it would have been almost improper for the Government, in advance of consideration, such as by the ad hoc committee, to put forward their own proposals, whether in the Bill or outside the Bill, and that the Bill contains only what is necessary to implement the treaties. These are not matters of the internal discipline or procedure of the House, in which it would be an impertinence for

      1545
      the Government to interfere; they are similar in kind to the provision in subsection (3), which provision is not necessary in order to implement the treaties.
      The Government need not have included subsection (3)—certainly not the second part. They have done it because they thought it was a proper parliamentary safeguard. If they think that there are other proper parliamentary safeguards, surely it is not only right but necessary that they should put them forward?
      The Solicitor-General: The reason—and I will comeback to it when I deal with my right hon. Friend's question in respect of the treaties which are subject to the subsection (3) procedure—is that these treaties do not fall to be implemented automatically under Article 228. They do not raise the particular problems and consequences that there arise from the obligations under that Article of the treaty and which can be dealt with in the way in which the Government there suggest. But the quality of the question is different. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton—
      Mr. Shore: This is a genuine point of elucidation; we want to try to get clear the terms of reference of the right hon. Gentleman's ad hoc committee, as extended to possible future treaties. A moment ago he said that he envisaged the use of this ad hoc committee to look only at those treaties which are genuinely Community treaties—that is, treaties which would not have to come under Clause 1(3)(b) of the matter that we are considering. Or is he saying that it should cover both lots of anticipated future treaties?
      The Solicitor-General: The terms of reference, as my right hon. Friend suggested in what he said last night, consider the most suitable arrangements in respect of treaties as in respect of other matters. I will read the passage again so that there can be no doubt as to what my right hon. and learned Friend said:
      "As for the ad hoc committee, I said on second Reading that the Government believed that there was a need for the House to have special arrangements under which it would be apprised of draft regulations and directives, and that the ad hoc committee would consider the most suitable arrangements. I did not specifically refer to treaties, but clearly the com-
      1546
      mittee would wish to consider the scope of Parliamentary consideration in respect of treaties as in other matters. It is in that sort of way that we can be confident that, in practice, some of the anxieties that have been expressed will not prove too great."
      Mr. English rose—
      The Solicitor-General: I cannot continue to give way on every aspect. I have reiterated what my right hon. and learned Friend said about that. I now come to the point with which I was going to deal. This was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, who asked specifically about future agreements arising in respect of Commonwealth sugar. I am sure that he will know from what is set out in Protocol No. 22 about the different options which are there conferred on the sugar-producing States. Of course, if they were to take up the option in Article 238, that would be an association agreement of the kind requiring unanimity and would then be subject to the procedure that we have discussed in relation to a treaty in which the United Kingdom was participating. If it were an association of a narrower kind—for example, under Article 113—that the Commonwealth State was seeking to have, it would be governed by that aspect of the Rome Treaty. It would not then be formally subject to the unanimity rule, it would still be subject to the practice to which my right hon. and learned Friend has often referred, whereby in all vital national interests the Community would not proceed to an agreement without the concurrence of each of the member States.
      That deals with the practice and the way in which it would be handled, and it is important to have that in mind. It would be a Community treaty and not a treaty to which the United Kingdom was a party, and would not then he subject to the specific provision of the second part of subsection (3) but would, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey (Mr. Grylls) pointed out, no doubt be the subject of continuous parliamentary pressure and interest in this House, and could be the subject of such pressure in all the conventional ways even while the United Kingdom was taking part in the treaty-making process or defining the way in which the Community would undertake the treaty-making process.
      8.45 p.m.
      Sir Robin Turton: The Solicitor-General has not quite answered my point. I suggested that this would come under Article 113 and could be made by qualified majority. We might well be in the majority and yet, unless Amendment No. 81 were passed, we would be denied the opportunity of raising that treaty in the House of Commons. I may be wrong, but I do not think the Solicitor-General has answered my point.
      The Solicitor-General: With respect to my right hon. Friend, I think I have answered the point. I have made it plain that under Article 238 there would be the interposition of the United Kingdom parliamentary process. If the associated State was proceeding under Article 113, that part of this Bill would not provide the automatic right for parliamentary interpositioning. But even in respect of a qualified majority provision, as set out in the treaty, as my right hon. and learned Friend has made clear many times, that would in practice, having regard to the way in which the Community works and to the common law of the Community, be subject to the principle that they would continue until they had reached unanimous agreement. In respect of that, and in respect of the extent to which our Government followed a course on a matter of vital interest, all the parliamentary pressures which are normally available would be available in terms of Her Majesty's Government.
      Mr. Jay: Is the Solicitor-General now taking refuge in what is known as the Luxembourg compromise? Would he not agree that that is not contained in the Treaty of Rome and has no legal force?
      The Solicitor-General: The position of the Luxembourg compromise, as the right hon. Gentleman calls it, has been explained many times in this House by my right hon. and learned Friend. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is not to be found in the terms of the treaties, but is part of the way in which the Community works and is central to the continued survival of the Community.
      Mr. English: Will the Solicitor-General give way on this specific point? He has missed out—
      The Solicitor-General: I turn to the specific Amendments which have been
      1548
      discussed separately and which fall into two or three different groups. There are those which seek to interpose an additional parliamentary procedure in respect of the Community treaties. There are those which seek to interpose a separate procedure in respect of the United Kingdom treaties. Hon. Members will recognise the extent to which Community treaties differ from United Kingdom treaties. Indeed my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West explained and acknowledged the extent to which Community treaties depend for their different nature on Article 228. They are required by the treaties to be directly binding on member States, and it follows from our accession to the Community that that result should follow.
      In respect of those Community treaties, Amendment No. 96 applies only to Community treaties, and proposes the interposition of the affirmative resolution procedure even in respect of Community treaties. Amendment No. 81 proposes completely to exclude future Community treaties from the definition, so in effect seeks to insert the necessity of parliamentary legislative procedures. Therefore, Amendments Nos. 96 and 81 deal with Community treaties.
      Amendment No. 82 seeks to remove from the definition treaties entered into by the United Kingdom so as to interpose the necessity for legislative procedures in respect of such United Kingdom treaties in the future as would affect any change in the United Kingdom law. The three other Amendments are partial variations of the three I have discussed. Amendment No. 147 requires legislation in respect of a United Kingdom treaty, and Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 require legislation in respect of a narrower category of United Kingdom treaty.
      I shall invite the Committee to conclude that those which are relating to Community treaties—namely, Amendments Nos. 96 and 81—are not, and should not be regarded as, acceptable when one has regard to the treaty-making power of the Communities as defined within the scope of the existing treaties. Article 228 has always been there and has always been regarded as one of the features of joining the Communities. It is obviously convenient in the context of joining an economic community of this

      1549
      kind for the Community institution to have the power within the terms defined in the treaty of making treaties within that field—commercial treaties and tariff treaties. There is nothing intrinsically wrong or unacceptable in continuing to accept that which always has been accepted in the nature of these organisations; namely, the Community's treaty-making power as heretofore defined. I invite the Committee to reach that conclusion by rejecting Amendment No. 96 and Amendment No. 81.
      I come now to the category of treaties on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West spent more time; namely, those to which the United Kingdom would be a party.
      Sir Elwyn Jones: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, particularly as he has passed the point, and I have not been able to hear all his speech, but is he saying that the treaties to which he is referring are confined to commercial and tariff treaties? That is what he has just said. Is it right?
      The Solicitor-General: Yes; the Community treaties which can be made within the terms of the article referred to without participation by member States are those which arise in the 113 and 114 group of Articles. For example, an association agreement under Article 238, which goes beyond the merely commercial one, is one which requires participation by the member States as well. What I am saying, therefore, is that the treaties which can now be made by the Community treaty-making powers can only be made within the parameters so far defined by the Rome Treaty in relation to which the last Government made their application. I know that to some right hon. and hon. Members even that is unacceptable. What I am arguing is that that principle within that defined field was accepted, and reasonably accepted, for the reasons I have given. The consequence of those treaties being given legal effect in accordance with Article 228 is acceptable.
      I come to the other category of treaties to which my right hon. Friend has attached importance, those which would require the participation of the United Kingdom, which would or could have the effect of extending the scope of the original Rome Treaty and, therefore, of extending, for example, the scope of the
      1550
      treaty-making power of the Community institutions. It is in respect of those treaties that the provisions set out in the second part of subsection (3) apply.
      My right hon. Friend, perhaps too generously but not I think unintentionally, referred to my encomium of the affirmative order procedures there set out and sought to reduce it to something of no significance. I cannot accept that that is a true view to take of the matter. He referred to the necessity for any change, be it great or small, in the scope of the existing treaties being subjected to the full legislative procedures of the House of Commons. That is not either necessary or wise. I do not underestimate the importance of the point. A number of these ancillary treaties would no doubt require the participation of the United Kingdom, almost for the avoidance of doubts, on the perimeters of the existing treaty-making powers. They would be purely procedural and administrative matters and it would be trying Parliament too far to require legislation in respect of every one.
      On the other hand, with treaties requiring United Kingdom participation—at the great rather than the small end of my right hon. Friend's anxieties—treaties potentially extending the scope of the European Communities step by step down the road which some people want to go more or less than others, then it is important that Parliament should be able to intervene. The opportunity for Parliament to intervene by way of the affirmative Resolution procedure should not be dismissed as frail and insubstantial—
      Mr. Spearing: On this point the hon. and learned Gentleman said yesterday:
      "The question would be entirely at large and it is important that it should be so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 1342.]
      Am I right in thinking that the affirmative Resolution would not be as to approval because the Bill says not "approve" but "regard". Therefore, the order would not be to approve a particular treaty but would be to say that it be regarded as a Community treaty. That is a different thing from what the Solicitor-General said yesterday.
      The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman does not follow the construction of the Clause:
      "shall not be so regarded unless it is so specified."

      1551
      It shall not be specified until the order has been approved so the approval has to be—
      Mr. Powell: The order?
      The Solicitor-General: Certainly. That is the point I dealt with yesterday and to which my right hon. Friend returned this evening. I re-assert the proposition I advanced yesterday that it is the Order in Council which has to be approved.
      Mr. Spearing: Line 17 says:
      "shall not be so regarded."
      I take that to be referring to what we now call Part A of subsection (3). Line 12 says that the order is to be regarded as one of the Community treaties. There is a semi-colon, and then line 17 says that it shall not be so regarded. I submit that the second "so regarded" is referring to the first.
      The Solicitor-General: The "so regarded" means so regarded as one of the Community treaties, but it would not be so regarded unless specified and the order so specified has to be approved. I return to the conclusion I advanced yesterday. Suppose a treaty extending, or potentially extending, the scope of Community powers were to be introduced merely by Order in Council under that provision. Suppose, then, that a significant part of the House thought that it was one that required the introduction of substantive legislation, to make detailed changes of the kind contained in the second Part of the Bill, for example. That action would be one of the considerations that Parliament would want to bear in mind in deciding whether to approve the specification of a treaty in that way. One of the reasons why approval could be refused would be not merely that Parliament did not like it, but that Parliament was not prepared to tolerate the Executive resorting to acceptance of it merely by an Order in Council.
      9 p.m.
      It is wrong to regard this as laying the the foundation of prerogative legislation. The different ways in which Parliament could intervene and the different provocations which could justify Parliament in intervening would all be taken into account, so that Parliament would not see fit to do so in respect of a peripheral, small extension for the convenience of
      1552
      the continued working of the institutions. But as the nature of the charge developed from small to large, the extent to which Parliament would react and would require the Government to react by taking the matter to legislation would depend on the nature of the matter under consideration.
      I suggest that this is a properly adjusted, diverse method whereby Parliament can assert its control—[Interruption.]—diverse, because Parliament can react by making it clear that the treaty should be the subject of legislation or one that it would be prepared to accept by an Order in Council, with the Government facing the constant threat that they would not receive affirmative support for the necessary Order in Council.
      Dr. John Gilbert: As the Solicitor-General appears, implicitly if not explicitly, now to concede that which has been known to the rest of us all along, that the process of enactment of legislation is a far greater safeguard for the British people than an Order in Council, can he say why he shows such a great preference for the Order in Council? Does he think that an Order in Council is not amendable and can only be accepted or rejected? If so, why is he still so shy about introducing legislation to meet his needs? We have an unamendable Bill before us now.
      The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman makes the wrong point. In this context, it is the strength and quality of the unamendability of the Order in Council which gives it its versatile and diverse power—
      Mr. Heffer: The hon. and learned Gentleman must think we are stupid.
      The Solicitor-General: If the Government were to come forward seeking to make a change by an Order in Council in a situation which Parliament regarded as more appropriate for legislation, no doubt approval would be refused—
      Mr. Spearing rose—
      The Solicitor-General: No. I shall not give way any more. That is why I commend to the Committee—
      Mr. Spearing: It was my point originally.
      The Solicitor-General: It seems to have changed sides. However, I do not want

      1553
      to go hack to it again. I commend to the Committee the provisions of subsection 3 as they now stand.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Mr. Mendelson.
      Mr. John Mendelson rose—
      Mr. Jay: Before the Solicitor-General sits down—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have called the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson).
      Mr. Mendelson: The reply that we have just received from the Solicitor-General proves conclusively that this matter requires a great deal of further discussion.
      First, I should like to put a formal procedural point. Perhaps I might have the Solicitor-General's attention—we listened to him with great care—because this point affects him personally. After the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply yesterday he moved away from the usual practice by not giving a further reply, as is customary in Committee, to further contributions by hon. Members. The hon. and learned Gentleman's first intervention was not regarded by anybody, including himself, as a winding-up speech, as will be seen from HANSARD.
      My point is that since the matters with which the Solicitor-General has just dealt are of such eminent importance and involve the whole principle of Parliament's control over treaties and the treaty-making power of the Executive, we ought to have an indication that the hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to make a further reply.
      As you know, Mr. Mallalieu, even in Committees upstairs, which are smaller bodies, it is customary to have more than one reply from the Minister most directly concerned. It would be most unsatisfactory, and moving away from all accepted procedure—even in Standing Committees upstairs, which, as I say, are smaller bodies and are not regarded, important though they are, as quite as important as a Committee of the whole House—if we were not to receive a further reply from the Government.
      Tonight we have had the clearest indication of what the Government really
      1554
      have in mind in putting forward the legislation in this form. They have designed a system under which parliamentary control of these treaties and of the treaty-making power will be seriously reduced and, therefore, the position of the Legislature in relation to the Executive will be seriously diminished. That is the seriousness of the debate whch is now taking place.
      Yesterday afternoon the Lord Advocate, whose presence we welcome, made a brief intervention in the brilliant opening speech for this side of the Committee by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray). I recall, from experience on many Standing Committees in the past, hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies asking that the Lord Advocate be summoned to the debate. The Committee is glad to see the Lord Advocate present on two consecutive days. At least this is an improvement compared with previous proceedings. I am sure that in making that statement I carry with me some prominent Members from Scottish constituencies.
      The Lord Advocate, in his intervention in my hon. and learned Friend's speech yesterday—I am not quoting directly; I am merely giving a paraphrase—said, "What the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying may be interesting, but it is old hat, because I said all this, and more, in a lecture which I gave some months ago to a learned society in Scotland."
      I have always accepted that the educational system in Scotland is very advanced. It is common ground among hon. Members from all parts of the kingdom that the Scots, therefore, have a high level of understanding and appreciation, and I can understand that the Lord Advocate had listeners who could follow these matters. However, it is surprising that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have confined all this knowledge, which he has had for such a long time, to his Scottish listeners away from the centre of our political affairs and not given the Committee the benefit of that knowledge. It would have been of great value to Parliament and to the Committee in these proceedings if we had known of this for a long time. Even my right hon. and learned Friend would agree that this would be of the greatest

      1555
      possible value. But the hon. and learned Gentleman failed us. He did not communicate any of this hidden treasure of intellectual achievement and information to us until my right hon. and learned Friend made his own modest effort yesterday.
      This is the crux of the matter. If the Solicitor-General has said one thing more than any other it is that this has been known all along. What he ignores is that this is the first time that this Committee has been asked to introduce all this into our legislation. So it is irrelevant for the Government to claim that all this has been known. What they have to prove is that it is useful and in keeping with the power of Parliament to pass what they have known for so long into our legislation. I hope that the Government will forget this phrase and try to defend what they are doing.
      What alarms me is that the Solicitor-General found no defence tonight for the Government's decisions in this important field. I hope that they will keep away from purely legal argument. The country is gravely concerned about these decisions, and there is a great danger that these debates might be written off because of the impression given by the newspapers of experienced lawyers tossing legal points to and fro on erudite matters which are beyond ordinary understanding. We would do a disservice if we allowed that impression to be created. The Government should discuss the real meat of their proposals and not be evasive.
      The newspapers should treat these proceedings not as law reports but as the heart of the matter. If we do not get satisfaction on Amendments like this, some of the most essential rights and powers of the House of Commons in relation to the Executive will disappear. Whatever we might do on other Clauses, this is as important a Clause as there is in the Bill.
      Mr. Alfred Morris: Does my hon. Friend share my suspicion that there is no intention to give careful and considered and acceptable replies to our arguments, and that there is every indication that many right hon. and hon. Members opposite want to sharpen a guillotine to cancel proper discussion?
      9.15 p.m.
      Mr. Mendelson: I have no knowledge of such matters, nor do I expect the Government to give us acceptable replies in all cases. What I do expect is that the Government should freely admit, against the material background of political and economic affairs as they are developing in the Community now, what they are asking the Committee to agree to. I am asking no more than that. Any speculation about what the future may hold is outside my competence, because I have no knowledge of any such intentions on the part of anybody.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) for introducing a great deal of political reality into this discussion by referring to the example of the Spanish Agreement. The perfunctory way in which the Solicitor-General tried to reply to this point illustrates what I have in mind. In subsection (3) we have two categories dealing with essential problems that will face this Legislature in future. The defence which the Solicitor-General has twice offered does not improve matters, although tonight he spoke more clearly than he did yesterday.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman tried yesterday to say that any hon. Member who had suggested that the second provision in subsection (3) was a feeble safeguard for or defence of this Parliament was mistaken. He said that attacks had been made on the safeguard but he believed that it was a strong one. Let us examine the hon. and learned Gentleman's case in relation to the future accumulation of treaties.
      Many hon. Members have been concerned for several years with the kind of arrangements that the Prime Minister has started discussing with President Pompidou about the future use of nuclear weapons. It is against the background of real problems of this kind that the Committee must look at these treaty-making provisions.
      The Prime Minister has recently been saying—although he was not saying so some years ago—that it is far too early to talk about these matters in detail. "We do not have any active discussions in progress at the moment with the French or with any other Government about these matters", the right hon. Gentleman

      1557
      has been telling us. However, a few years ago, in a series of lectures at Harvard University, the present Prime Minister committed himself to a policy of such military nuclear co-operation, and it is well known that a number of people in Community countries regard British entry as something positive precisely because they want to use British nuclear know-how, in military terms, to build up a third nuclear community. That is not contradicted, and it is the view of a number of influential people.
      Subsection (3) is directly relevant to these ideas. For example, a few weeks ago President Pompidou was to come to Britain for a weekend conference with the Prime Minister. Unforeseen circumstances—they were connected with the industrial situation at the time—resulted in that visit being postponed.
      However, two days before the President was due to arrive, sources close to the Quai d'Orsay in Paris passed information to a number of French military and diplomatic correspondents to the effect that one of the items that would be on the agenda for the conference was future military nuclear co-operation between the United Kingdom and France. This is new information that has not been brought to the attention of the House in these debates, though it is directly relevant to this discussion.
      The Government are asking us to pass legislation which is to operate for a very long time to come. When we talk about the ultimate powers of the House of Commons the Solicitor-General and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster keep saying that some time in the future Parliament could say, "We won't want any of this. We reject this or that treaty", but that is not a serious way of dealing with debates. They are not asking us to join a stamp club, which we can join one day and leave the next. It must be implied that this is for a long time, yet on the next day they say that in the end Parliament can reject the whole lot. Parliament and the country are being seriously asked by the Government to enter into this association with the intention of remaining in it for many years to come.
      It then becomes practical politics that, if finally the legislation is passed and this country joins the Community at the be-
      1558
      ginning of next year, if there were negotiations concerning a third nuclear military command—which many in this country would regard with the greatest foreboding, and which is completely and utterly opposed to the point of view of the Labour Party as expressed by its Leader over many years, with the consent of the whole party—some treaty might be negotiated and concluded. Then it would come to the House as an Order in Council. Nothing that the Solicitor-General said this afternoon in reply to many points that have been made would change that position one little bit.
      I ask hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—always excluding the Lord Advocate, for I do not know whether he has put it to the learned society in Scotland—whether they have always known that it would be possible to introduce such far-reaching new commitments and then have them passed by an Order in Council, even if the debate were not confined to 90 minutes but took five hours or a whole day under this procedure. I admit to being a little naïve. but I always thought that if the Prime Minister were to implement such a policy and to establish with other Powers a third nuclear command, it would have to be done in such a way as to allow the House of Commons to have everything in it under review, and to go into the detail of any such extension.
      We had the news this morning of the important meeting that has taken place among the Six in Brussels over the last three days. When we look at the French Press, which is reporting this matter much more extensively than our Press, we find that the matters being discussed are designed not only to reduce parity between different members of the Community and to have an influence on the relation of Community currencies to the United States dollar; they go much further. We also know that in his last conference with President Pompidou the Prime Minister came to certain agreements as to the way in which these further negotiations were to be handled. He agreed to the setting up of a special secretariat. He did not make any move towards giving more powers to a European Parliament as so many hon. Members have from time to time fondly imagined.

      1559
      One of the arguments that we hear, which is strictly relevant to the discussion on these Amendments—and this is the one occasion when we can do anything about it—was made in the long debate before the 28th October decision. Many hon. Members who support our application said, "Yes, but what we are aiming at is the development of the powers of the European Parliament. We shall have a powerful influence in that direction." Those hon. Members will know that I am not misrepresenting them. This is the genuine argument which they put forward. The implication was that it does not matter if the powers of Parliament are somewhat reduced, because they will be replaced in future by greater powers given to the European Parliament. That has been the argument.
      Hon. Members have been saying "If one joints a larger Community"—and, after all, this is something that one can contemplate—"and if that Community develops its own institutions, maybe one will have to give up some of the democratic powers inherent in the assembly that one has already." They have not dared so far to say that perhaps Britain will be reduced to a State like one of the 50 States of the United States of America and will have a governor, perhaps, and a State Assembly. But the implication was there, and it was there to prepare the way for hon. Members to become more amenable to the proposition that our powers will have to be reduced but that other powers will be increased. But not a bit of it. At the last conference that the Prime Minister had in France with President Pompidou, they moved altogether in the opposite direction. That is what I mean when I urge that we ought to discuss the provisions contained in the subsection against the background of real politics and of what is going on in the political world outside.
      I can see the interests of the Solicitor-General. He wishes to turn it into a very quiet-spoken, legal argument, so that the fewer who follow the argument the better for him. He tried to do that in the long debates on the Industrial Relations Act. It has blown up in his face. I warn him that his tactics on this matter are equally misguided because the time will come when the people of Britain will realise that there are serious interests and serious
      1560
      future dangers involved in these legal arguments across the table. It is the duty of the House of Commons and this Committee to look at these things against the background of reality.
      We have had reports this morning about far-reaching plans to go on beyond the creation of a new limited contrast between the currencies of the Six and the four applicant States, once they become members, to a European currency and to far-reaching federal arrangements. Once the Community moves on to that, the first essential steps towards a federated Europe will have been taken. A federated Europe is not just a dream. One of the essential characteristics of such a federation would be a common currency. Therefore, what we have to remember is that if we were on this occasion to give our approval without introducing essential parliamentary safeguards, as asked for by this group of Amendments, we should be giving carte blanche to the Government and any future Executive, of whatever party, to proceed in those far-reaching developments under the authority that they would receive.
      The Solicitor-General came close to my argument at one point. He said that we must look at this matter against the background of real politics in the future and that there may be many other opportunities that will allow Parliament and the House of Commons to have long and serious debates about these matters in the future, if it were to come to pass. It may be possible in the future for Parliament to have long debates on these matters. It may be possible to ask Parliamentary Questions. The Solicitor-General referred to those methods. It may be possible in future to raise an application under Standing Order No. 9 for a debate. But the one thing that the Solicitor-General could not say is decisive, because the treaty-making power would be so confined that it would become an instrument for making the House of Commons impotent regarding the essential function it ought to have.
      At that stage the Solicitor-General introduced the famous ad hoc committee. I do not wish to repeat what my right hon. and hon. Friends have said about the introduction of this late idea. All that needs to be said today is that it is not only the formal difficulty that the Committees find itself in but that this ad hoc

      1561
      committee has not been set up and is only an idea so far. As we advance in debate, every day Treasury Bench spokesmen claim new functions for this potential ad hoc committee.
      [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
      9.30 p.m.
      We have seen an interesting progression in this field. The Government were claiming certain functions for a future ad hoc committee, and in the middle of the debate they added more functions to this ad hoc committee which is not in existence yet. No one knows what its functions will finally be. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has spoken very little in this Committee stage, and I hope we shall hear more from him. It is unhelpful that the Law Officer should be bearing the brunt of the debates, and it adds to the false impression outside that these are merely legal issues handed across the table and returned by lawyers who have erudite arguments to develop which no one else can follow. I hope we shall hear more from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and more about the actual economic and political background to the kind of Clause that he is supporting here.
      I turn from the possibility of a third nuclear command in the future and the development of economic and monetary union, which have been the subject of discussion in the last few days, to something which concerns the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At some point in the proceedings of the Committee the Chancellor of the Exchequer should join his colleagues on the Treasury Bench. There have been many Standing Committees where Ministers from various Departments have come along to help out from time to time. Here we are discussing matters many of which come directly under the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No doubt the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had close contact with his colleagues throughout the negotiations when he was going to Brussels, Luxembourg, Paris and other parts of Europe. No doubt he will have developed his own system of close liaison with them. He was not obliged to tell the House in too much intimate detail what arrangements he had made, but I think he will admit that there must
      1562
      have been times when he could not make a decision on his authority but had to pass it on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I recall in the House, and it can be checked with HANSARD, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to say that on a particular question there was also another authority, and it was quite fair that he should say so. But ipso facto matters are being considered by the Committee which are under the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he ought to be here to deal with them. We ought to hear from him about the vast economic powers which are going to form the background to the treaties. They will concern not only the value-added tax but also the monetary union and a common currency which come under the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
      If we do not adopt some of the Amendments that have been moved and have been supported on both sides of the House we are left with very little parliamentary control over any such future development.
      I come to my penultimate comment, which concerns the constitutional position of the House of Commons if no safeguards are introduced. I see the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) smiling. I do not remember seeing him following the arguments, but he will be there at the end of the day smiling and voting, although I doubt whether he will know what he is voting about. During these two days I have learned an enormous amount by always being present. Many of the speeches of yesterday and today, from both sides of the Committee, made these matters much clearer, and made some clear for the first time.
      Sir John Rodgers: I am not getting much clarification from having listened to the hon. Member for the last few minutes.
      Mr. Mendelson: Exactly. The hon. Gentleman arrived too late. I am not criticising him for having been absent, but for coming in now to express an opinion. The learning part is over and we have reached the stage of making use of what we have learned and applying it to this stage of the debate. The hon. Gentleman is a latecomer and will not reach the level of this form, for he has been left far behind; but he will vote.

      1563
      From now on, as was pointed out in the special article in The Times the other day, the power of the Legislature over the Executive will inevitably diminish as a result of the Government's proposals. No hon. Member will take that lightly. There are only two honourable positions for a Government to adopt with that prospect. I could understand the Government honestly saying that there was to be a serious diminution in the power of the Legislature, that other federations had grown up in that way, and that the States of the American Union, for instance, had had to accept that, that the 13 States were much more powerful than anyone else in that hemisphere at that time and regarded themselves as far more important than any future United States, and that whether they regarded it as necessary or unnecessary they had no doubts. The Fathers of the American Constitution came clean with the American people at the time.
      I can understand the Government telling Parliament, "We know that the powers of Parliament are to be seriously diminished and we support that and we ask you to approve it." That is an understandable and honourable attitude and a point of view to be respected. The Government could say that they believed in diminishing the powers of the House of Commons because they believed that in due course, after some years, we should belong to a Western European Federation in which we were a member State, as France and the others would be member States, where the power would be at the centre, apart from the local government powers that we would retain. The Government could argue that they did not regard that as a disadvantage and thought that there should be some diminution in the powers of Parliament right away, that that diminution might not be as vast as we would say but still a serious beginning.
      That is an attitude that I could understand, and there is to be such a diminution in the power of Parliament nobody in his senses could deny. No playing around with the future functions of ad hoc committees can in any way contradict that proposition. Some people outside the House argue this quite seriously. For example, M. Jean Monnet, the father of the Western European
      1564
      Union, always believed, and believes today, that it does not matter if the powers of the Parliaments in the various States in the Community are diminished, that it would be unhealthy if those powers remained too strong, because it would be an obstacle to the building up of the future federation.
      We must observe what has happened in some other countries. Here I particularly refer to the French Parliament. An argument dear to the heart of some hon. Members is to point to the commissions in the French Parliament. This argument is being adopted by the Government when they talk about the famous ad hoc committee. The original argument always was, "It's all right. We shall have a number of committees here, just as the French have in their National Assembly. There will be a great deal of power in these committees, and they will control the Executive." I invite the Lord Advocate and all those others with a great deal of knowledge of these matters to go to Paris now and see the power of the French Parliament. It has been consistent Gaullist policy for many years to destroy this power, and it has succeeded. It is no matter to a Gaullist Minister or a Gaullist member of the National Assembly to accept the kind of subsection the Government have put before us, because they do not believe that there should be more power in the Legislature. They are by ideology and principle committed to the idea that the power of the Legislature should be diminished. They have diminished it very seriously, and they are going on diminishing it.
      Is that a proposition that commends itself to Members of the British Parliament? No one will accuse Opposition Members of being chauvinistic when they point to the very real powers still in the hands of the House of Commons. The counter-cry usually is, "If you raise this point, you believe there is only one Parliament in the world. This shows how blind you are to what goes on in other countries." I hope that in the serious discussions of this Committee no such charge will be made. It is a fact of great political importance that this Parliament has remained the one powerful assembly, apart from the United States Congress, that could be called a Parliament endowed with the real powers that

      1565
      a Legislature should have. Hon. Members on both sides are concerned about losing that power.
      In previous debates some of those who are particularly keen on getting this country into the E.E.C. have scoffed at some other hon. Members whom they have called unreconstructed anti-Europeans. They say, "You don't know what you are talking about. There is no need to be so proud of the powers of this Parliament. You are backward in your thinking if you say you must insist on retaining precisely the constitutional powers that you have now". Members have been taking the view in some of these debates that they were superior, more modern, more forward-looking if they were in favour of giving up some of Parliament's power.
      But in the subsection we find a real test. This is the first time we get down to some of the real discussion. That is why I so much regret the absence of the Leader of the House, not only because he is a considerable constitutional expert but because he is charged with safeguarding the rights of the House. I hope nothing untoward has happened to him, because he has not graced our debates yesterday or today. He should be present, because we are discussing his Department.
      Whether we believe in the application to join the E.E.C. is not relevant.
      9.45 p.m.
      The Committee, acting for the House of Commons, is duty-bound to find some ways and means of at least putting in some safeguard against what the Government are trying to do. This is the relevance of the Amendments that are now before the Committee. They fall into two categories. One category is concerned with the first part of subsection (3), on page 2 of the Bill. That subsection has been divided into A and B, but one of my hon. and learned Friends is not very happy about that terminology. I will accept his advice and talk about the first and second portions of the subsection.
      In fact, the remedy for the first portion must be to bring those automatic treaties—as one might call them—under some form of parliamentary control. The Solicitor-General, when replying to the debate not very long ago, said: "Well,
      1566
      it is quite normal; it has always been like this with Community treaties; for that kind of treaty you do not need or want parliamentary approval". That is all he said, as though it were self-evident. He did not argue that it was a good thing to have a whole series of future extensions of Community treaties, whether the United Kingdom had to be a partner or not, and whether it was a good thing not to have any such extensions subject to parliamentary control. All he said, as hon. Members will be able to read in HANSARD tomorrow, was that it had always been like that and had always been accepted that it should be like that. In other words, he was saying that it was self-evident that Parliament should accept it. What an absurd argument.
      This is the major constitutional parliamentary occasion on which the Executive have an opportunity to give real reasons for the kind of Clause that they want the House eventually—after all these Amendments have been disposed of, and after debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part—to be in favour of passing. But they provide no arguments or reasons. The Solicitor-General made a very long speech lasting 45 minutes, but I would have been glad to listen to him for an hour and a quarter if he had gone on to make these points. All he said was that it had always been like that in the Community arrangements, that Parliamentary approval was not necessary for such extensions of Community treaties, and that therefore we should not have it in the future.
      But this is the bread and meat of the future of ordinary United Kingdom citizens—and here we reach the crucial link with what is regarded as an extension of treaties within the Community. Once Britain becomes a member of that Community such extensions will have a day-to-day effect upon the lives of our people.
      I move on to the other treaties—the second portion of subsection (3) on page 2 of the Bill, in which the Government are proposing only an Order in Council debate and we are told that there is such a vast difference between the two. In fact, however, as a result of the debate this afternoon—and it will be news to those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who were not here when those interesting exchanges took place that we have made

      1567
      some progress in interpreting the Bill this afternoon—it has now been agreed that the real distinction between the two types is not as had hitherto been assumed but is this.
      The first category concerns treaties that the Community enters into or develops. The second category consists of treaties in which the United Kingdom is a partner. On this point I carry the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with me. I say that because in Committee it is not always necessary to disagree. We can agree that we have made this amount of intellectual logical progress today. However, there is no suggestion, in the speech of the Solicitor-General or anywhere else, that this establishes a difference in category between the two beyond the formal legal category that we have just established.
      This means that extremely important subject matter will be part and parcel of the first category of treaties, as it will be of the second. I happen to represent a steel constituency and it is clear that at some time in the future there will be development of the Coal and Steel Community, which may affect the livelihood of my constituents. This is the time to think about our constituents. Some of those extensions will put limits on organisation, expansion, and type of competition which the steel industry will have to face. In normal circumstances any such change by a Government would have to be put to the House of Commons in the form of a Bill.
      I happen to be a veteran of the Steel Nationalisation Committee which sat upstairs for 13 weeks. The Conservative Members kept us going in the morning, in the afternoon, at night-time and again for breakfast in the morning. The then Minister for Overseas Development, with whom I became firm friends, was in charge of a Bill on pipelines and that Committee sat for 11 weeks. On that occasion we kept the other side very occupied, as the Patronage Secretary will remember.
      I can imagine the reaction in a Standing Committee in those days if a Labour Minister had said, "Do not worry. We will have an Order in Council which can be debated for seven hours, as a result of which the steel industry will be reorganised." I wonder what fate would
      1568
      have awaited that Minister. Indeed, so powerful was the Opposition in that Committee that we spent the first two days discussing not steel nationalisation but a Motion that we should sit only on Tuesdays and Thursdays. All honour and glory to those Conservative Members who took that action.
      I am at the moment surrounded by veterans on my own side who have been members, and who are now members, of Standing Committees in similar circumstances. It would be absurd on a future occasion to think that legislation involving extensions of Community arrangements could be passed through this House without any other act taking place than that of our being able to ask a Parliamentary Question or to table a Standing Order No. 9 Motion. That might well be out of order according to the predictions which have been made. Out of 11 applications for a Standing Order No. 9 debate only one is achieved. A wholly unsatisfactory situation would arise.
      To remedy these dangers right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have put forward these modest Amendments. The honourable course would be for the Government to admit that the powers will be diminished, but they say that the powers will not be diminished. The logical course would be for the Government to embrace the Amendments, to show that they are the guardians of the powers of the House of Commons.
      If it is difficult for the Government to cross the political line, they could start by accepting the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and remain within the political family. Every hon. Gentleman opposite is a member of the same political family, just as my hon. Friends are all members of the same political family. I cannot make a pronouncement about the small family sitting immediately in front of me; they must speak for themselves. They also have their differences, but they are still a family.
      This is a matter of such tremendous importance that party lines do not matter. If the Government wanted to give evidence that they are custodians of future parliamentary power they should cut across the dividing line of the Committee

      1569
      and adopt some if not all of the Amendments proposed by my hon. and right hon. Friends, which seek to introduce the power of legislation over future treaties. This would be fully justified by the self-executing treaty powers of the Community.
      The Amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is in the true traditions of the House of Commons. The House of Commons always prides itself on its flexibility. If new political developments create new problems, the proper answer of Parliamentarians is to introduce additional safeguards to make certain that in the spirit of past ages the Legislature does not allow its powers to be diminished.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends are seeking to introduce controls over the
      Executive which would to some extent diminish the loss of parliamentary power. That is a proper description of the aims of my hon. and right hon. Friends. These are the kind of proposals we have worked out—
      It being Ten o clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made, and Question put,
    That the European Communities Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]
    The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 180.

    Division No. 74.]

    AYES

    [10 p.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Fidler, Michael

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Astor, John

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Awdry, Daniel

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Kilfedder, James

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Fortescue, Tim

    Kimball, Marcus

    Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord

    Fox, Marcus

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Fry, Peter

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Gardner, Edward

    Kitson, Timothy

    Benyon, W.

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Goodhart, Philip

    Knox, David

    Blaker, Peter

    Goodhew, Victor

    Lane, David

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Gorst, John

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Body, Richard

    Gower, Raymond

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Boscawen, Robert

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Gray, Hamish

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

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Green, Alan

    Longden, Sir Gilbert

    Bray, Ronald

    Grieve, Percy

    MacArthur, Ian

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    McLaren, Martin

    Bryan, Paul

    Grylls, Michael

    McMaster, Stanley

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

    Gummer, J. Selwyn

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Burden, F. A.

    Gurden, Harold

    Madel, David

    Butler Adam (Bosworth)

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Mather, Carol

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

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Maude, Angus

    Carlisle, Mark

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Mawby, Ray

    Carr Rt. Hn. Robert

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Churchill, W. S.

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Cockeram, Eric

    Haselhurst, Alan

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

    Cooke, Robert

    Havers, Michael

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Coombs, Derek

    Hawkins, Paul

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Cooper, A. E.

    Heath, Rt Hn. Edward

    Monro, Hector

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hiley, Joseph

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Costain, A. P.

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

    More, Jasper

    Critchley, Julian

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Crouch, David

    Holland, Philip

    Morrison, Charles

    Curran, Charles

    Hordern, Peter

    Murton, Oscar

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Neave, Airey

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

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Dean, Paul

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Osborn, John

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Hunt, John

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    James, David

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Pardoe, John

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

    Jessel, Toby

    Parkinson, Cecil

    Emery, Peter

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Percival, Ian

    Eyre, Reginald

    Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

    Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

    Farr, John

    Jopling, Michael

    Pounder, Rafton

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

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

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

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

    Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Simeons, Charles

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Waddington, David

    Raison, Timothy

    Soref, Harold

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Speed, Keith

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Spence, John

    Wall, Patrick

    Redmond, Robert

    Stainton, Keith

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Warren, Kenneth

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Steel, David

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Stewart-Smith Geoffrey (Belper)

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Wilkinson, John

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Stokes, John

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Sutcliffe, John

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

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

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Worsley, Marcus

    Rost, Peter

    Temple, John M.

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Russel, Sir Ronald

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Scott, Nicholas

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Sharples, Richard

    Tilney, John

    Mr. Walter Clegg and Mr. John Stradling Thomas.

    NOES

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

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

    Allen, Scholefield

    Golding, John

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Ashton, Joe

    Gourlay, Harry

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Moyle, Roland

    Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Murray, Ronald King

    Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Baxter, William

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Ogden, Eric

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Bishop, E. S.

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Oram, Bert

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Hamling, William

    Orbach, Maurice

    Booth, Albert

    Hardy, Peter

    Orme, Stanley

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

    Harper, Joseph

    Oswald, Thomas

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Buchan, Norman

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Paget, R. T.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hattersley, Roy

    Palmer, Arthur

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Pannell, Rt. Hn Charles

    Campbell, I (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Castle Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Pendry, Tom

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Pentland, Norman

    Coleman, Donald

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Prescott, John

    Concannon, J. D.

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Hunter, Adam

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Probert, Arthur

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

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Rankin, John

    Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Dalyell, Tam

    John, Brynmor

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

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

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

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

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Rose, Paul B.

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

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

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Sandelson, Neville

    Deakins, Eric

    Judd, Frank

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Kerr, Russell

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

    Dempsey, James

    Lambie, David

    Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

    Doig, Peter

    Lamond, James

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Dormand, J. D.

    Lee, Rt. Hon. Frederick

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Driberg, Tom

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Sillars, James

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Silverman, Julius

    Dunn, James A.

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Eadie, Alex

    McBride, Neil

    Small, William

    Edelman, Maurice

    McCann, John

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    McElhone, Frank

    Spearing, Nigel

    Ellis, Tom

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Spriggs, Leslie

    English, Michael

    Mackie, John

    Stallard, A. W.

    Evans, Fred

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Ewing, Harry

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Strang, Gavin

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

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

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Marks, Kenneth

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

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Marshall, Dr. Edmund

    Tinn, James

    Foley, Maurice

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Tomney, Frank

    Foot, Michael

    Meacher, Michael

    Urwin, T. W.

    Freeson, Reginald

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Varley, Eric G.

    Garrett, W. E.

    Millan, Bruce

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    1572

    1573

    Wallace, George

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Weitzman, David

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. James Wellbeloved.

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Whitlock, William

    Woof, Robert

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.
  Mr. Mendelson: I endeavoured, before the interruption of the work of the Committee, to put a number of reasoned arguments in support of the Amendments. I have had the courtesy of right hon. and hon. Members listening to those arguments, and I do not wish to add anything more.
  Mr. Shore: I should like to begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) for shortening his speech. I am sure he had many more points to make. Indeed, most right hon. and hon. Members who have followed the debate today have found it difficult not to speak at some length.
  Although the Solicitor-General, who is not in his place at the moment, spoke for 75 minutes, he did not speak for a minute too long. Indeed, those of us who have been following the argument for the last two days with the closeness which you, Sir Robert, would expect of us, really regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman was unable—"unable" has at least two meanings—to continue his speech, which we were finding very interesting indeed.
  Perhaps I may pick up the threads of our continuing debates. Last night in our first Amendment we sought to delete Clause 1(3), as we put it, with the intention of destroying the new machinery for smuggling into our affairs new treaties and, with those new treaties, the possibilities of new legislation which would, in fact, be virtually through ministerial fiat.
  Today we return to the same underlying theme. In these six Amendments we seek to ensure that no new future treaties should be agreed to in the name of this country unless they have gone through all the normal processes which are involved. We wish treaties to be laid before Parliament, and, if they have internal effects, there should be a Bill to carry out the changes in our laws. That is what Amendments Nos. 147 and 162 would provide. The debate has given us no reason to change our view that either or both of these Amendments are desirable.
  [Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]
  10.15 p.m.
  Our Amendment No. 96 is very modest—in the light of the debate, perhaps too modest for our purpose of bringing the effective scrutiny of Parliament to bear on Community treaties. Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 seek broadly the same objective, and I should be happy to see either or both carried.
  1576
  Our reason for wanting to control this treaty-making power was made clear yesterday, when we expressed our main fear that the power under Clause 1(2) and (3) could easily be abused and that far-reaching commitments could be entered into by the Government without necessarily the consent of Parliament. There was no effective reply to our charge that there was a real danger of abuse of Executive power.
  The Chancellor of the Duchy dealt with one aspect of the matter, the Community treaties. He left mainly to the Solicitor-General the other aspect of future treatymaking—those treaties which are entered into not by the Community itself but by the United Kingdom, along with others, as a party to a Community treaty. It is those two separate matters which we have now to consider.
  I begin with the power of the Community in its own right to conclude treaties. The defence of this great power by Ministers was not convincing. They argued, as they are entitled to do, that some of these powers are built into Articles which have been in the Treaty of Rome for a considerable time. The various Articles of the Rome Treaty were subject to an over-riding restraint up to the end of 1969 and the beginning of 1970. Up to that date they came under the transitional period, by which a far greater power resided in the individual member States. It was only after that date that the treaty-making commercial power of the European Communities moved from Article 111 to Article 112, and that slightly different procedure marked the change.
  The Minister's first defence is that this does not particularly worry him, while his second defence is that the matters which these Community powers for making treaties cover are of relatively small significance. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) made an interesting speech related centrally to the Chancellor of the Duchy's claim that this was only a relatively insignificant treaty-making power.
  The Father of the House said, "In that case, let us apply this treaty-making power to, for example, the future of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement." Hon.

  1577
  Members who over the years have taken part in these debates will recognise the legitimate concern that was felt in all parts of the House about this agreement during the negotiations. We felt that there had to be a satisfactory arrangement covering sugar before membership could be possible or acceptable to us.
  This aspect relates to the subject that we have been discussing, because at present we have the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement—that is, Britain acting as a separate commercial power in its own right; we have this agreement or trade treaty—to buy certain quantities of sugar at a certain price. This agreement expires, because it is not to be renewed, at the end of 1974.
  If we enter the E.E.C. the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement—for sell sugar these countries must—cannot apply to this country. [Interruption.] They cannot sell sugar to us because we shall have ceded to the Community our right to make separate commercial treaties with third nations.
  The only possibility, therefore, of the Commonwealth countries selling satisfactory quantities of sugar and safeguarding their future is if they have satisfactory agreements with the Community as a whole, and it is the exercise of the Community's treaty-making power which alone can give satisfaction to the Commonwealth sugar-producing countries.
  The argument can begin about the likelihood of the Commonwealth countries getting the right kind of agreement, no doubt with Britain trying to do its best within the Council of Ministers. The question then arises whether it is to be a qualified majority voting decision or, as some people optimistically hope, a matter of unanimity. Which of these two is to be the method by which a decision is arrived at is irrelevant to the main point that the right hon. Gentleman the Father of the House was making, because the important point is this. The treaty that Commonwealth sugar countries have with us expires at the end of 1974 and we can no longer carry it on. Therefore, sugar imports will cease. They will no longer have any legal basis. A replacement agreement has then to come in, and, by definition, it has to he a Community treaty. That is the point. Whether that Community Treaty is arrived at by quail-
  1578
  fied majority vote or unanimity does not matter.
  The second point is that whatever that agreement may be, whether satisfactory or unsatisfactory, it may be something in which Ministers will be involved in the arguments in Brussels, but it is something from which the House of Commons is bound to be excluded because it will be a Community treaty, a treaty to which Britain is not a party and an agreement which we are not part of. Therefore, there is no requirement on the Government even to inform us of the result of that negotiation. That is the position. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would think that it was rather a good idea to let us know, but there is no requirement to let us know. Even if we did know, we have no machinery and right in the matter under the first part of Clause 1(3). Am I right or wrong? I am never too demanding of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Like myself, he is a reflective man and likes to think about his answers. I am happy to leave it at present. But what we want is not smart ripostes but the substantial answer. [Interruption.] It is a great pity that if hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway honour us with their presence after 10 p.m. they are not prepared to listen, and an even greater pity that they do not do the House of Commons, themselves or their constituents the courtesy of listening to probably the most important debates that have occurred in this Chamber for many years.
  Mr. Rippon: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not want in any way to mislead the Committee. He will recall that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General went into this matter and explained that one had to have regard to the nature of the arrangements that the Commonwealth countries make. They will have the opportunity of two forms of association agreement or a straight trade agreement. A different situation arises if they have an association agreement which brings in their Commonwealth rights. It is also fair to bear in mind what the position now is when Britain enters into trade agreements of that kind, when the parliamentary procedures are not usually invoked and where action is taken by the British Government and that is the end of the matter.
  Mr. Shore: On the second point, we are negotiating the agreement. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may say that Parliament does not always supervise an agreement which is arranged by the Government. But, good heavens, we can; and if we do not like it we can let the Government know. But, clearly, it is a different matter if the Community negotiates it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's distinction between the two kinds of possible agreement open to the Commonwealth sugar countries does not alter the matter very much. If the Commonwealth sugar countries were to decide to apply for association with the Common Market under article 238 of the Rome Treaty and to become A.O.T.s, I agree that the treaty that brought them into association with the Common Market or the extended European Community would be a treaty to which we were also a party and, therefore, that would come under the second part of Clause 1(3). In other words, that treaty could then come before the House, and with all the extended possibilities of debate on an affirmative Resolution. That would be the case if an association agreement was applied for and obtained and it would become an A.O.T. under Article 238.
  10.30 p.m.
  What I envisaged would be a likelier prospect, is that some sugar islands, if not all of them, would not become A.O.T.s. They would have a straightforward trade agreement under Article 113. Assume for the purpose of this debate that it is a trade agreement conducted by the Community with Commonwealth sugar countries to take whatever quantity of sugar they think right and acceptable to the Community after our agreement expires. There would be no need for that new agreement to be brought before this House. If it were brought before us, under the Part A of subsection (3) procedure, there would be no possibility for this House to argue about, vote on or throw it out. Am I right?
  Mr. Rippon: This is exactly what the Solicitor-General explained and what this debate has been about. This is the distinction betwen those treaties made by the Community with another party under
  1580
  the particular provisions of the treaty. Of course, it may well be that matters of this kind, as the Solicitor-General said, would, because there are various Community procedures and discussions, be thought to be matters of such importance that the countries which were parties to them might wish to reinforce them.
  Mr. Shore: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given me my point. I am seeking to establish that if it took the form of a Community trade treaty this House, when the time comes for renewal at the end of the period of the present Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, would not even have the right to be informed about, let alone to debate or to turn down, the new agreement.
  Now I come to what seems to me to be our legitimate argument with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the terms he negotiated. It is not that this information has come as a great surprise to me. I knew that under this particular term of the Rome Treaty a trade agreement would be conducted by the Community and not by this country. That is why I wanted a cast-iron protocol guaranteeing specific quantities of sugar to continue to be supplied to the United Kingdom market even if we entered the Common Market. That is the meaning of "effective terms" as applied to the sugar islands.
  Is not this point exactly the same as will apply to New Zealand? Is it not a fact that when the present New Zealand trade treaties expire the protocol on New Zealand tells us something about quantities over the transitional period and that at the end of that period the Commission will make a proposal? Then we have the difficult business of whether it has to be a unanimous decision of the Council or not. Putting that aside, when that agreement is made and the post-1977 butter agreement is signed, New Zealand will not become an Article 238 A.O.T. of the Common Market, but it will be a trade treaty under Article 113. Then it can come back to this House if the right hon. and learned Gentleman sees fit to report it to us, but it will come in a form under Part A of Clause 1(3), in which we shall not be able to debate it, and even if we could debate it, we could not interfere with it, amend it, or reject it.
  Mr. Rippon: One thing should be made clear. Of course, the House of Commons could debate it. There is no doubt about that. As we have made clear all along, any Government are responsible to the House of Commons. Therefore, if they entered, or allowed the Community to enter, agreements which could not be carried through this House or which were subject to a vote of censure, they would be open to great difficulty.
  Mr. Shore: When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition spoke about transitional terms and getting cast-iron guarantees for a generation or more there was a point, because we lose our treaty-making power, the power to give guarantees to countries which are and have been linked to us in their fortunes and linked to our markets. Our power to give them a guarantee about the future lapses under the terms of the Rome Treaty and our accession to it. Unless we write in specific detailed protocols, or whatever other form of reservation it may be, we cannot even live up to our obligations to those who have depended upon us. The extent to which we are able to fulfil those obligations in the years to come is no longer in our hands and it rests entirely with the goodwill and good faith of the Community as a whole.
  When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told us that relatively small matters were involved on which the Community had the power simply to make treaties in our name I do not think he was bringing out the fullness of the matter, and it was surprising he should not have mentioned the two most important treaties with which we are involved and which would be critically affected by the treaty-making power of the Community. I have given two illustrations, but a lot is involved here. The Community's treaty-making power may be limited by some of the articles of the Treaty of Rome, but they are rather more extensive than the House has begun to understand.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) mentioned his reservations and dislikes of a particular trade treaty with Spain and drew attention to the association agreement with Greece, he was on to something of profound importance. The pattern of
  1582
  these treaty arrangements adds up to a system of preference, a way of looking at the world, of giving preference to one group of nations and, at the same time, almost by definition, of withdrawing it from others. In joining the E.E.C., we are upturning the whole pattern of our relationships with the rest of the world. We are accepting the Continental system of preferences in trade and other matters and we are turning our backs on the system of preferences which we have known for so long and which are so much a part of our history, interests, sentiments and convictions. Since when did the Government feel they had greater obligations to Tunis, Morocco, Greece, Turkey and Spain than they had with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Nigeria, India, and other countries in the Commonwealth.
  This is against the whole sentiment of the country and against its interests as well. Do not let us pretend by handing over our treaty-making power to the Community for the Community to make treaties covering us and in our name that what we are doing is insignificant and does not matter. We are not being honest with ourselves if we do not face the magnitude of what is involved.
  I have no desire to speak longer than the subject deserves, but I have dealt only with one part of what is involved in Clause 1(3) Part A, this loss of treaty-making power to the Communities. What about all those other areas of concern and all those treaties to which we are a party and which are linked with the Communities? I do not know where to begin.
  [SIR ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
  There is a great deal to be said. But I think the sentiment of the Committee was that the Government had made a profound error of judgment in subsection (3) Part B. That came out very clearly in the cross-examination to which the Solicitor-General was subjected earlier this evening. When all the manifest disadvantages of subsection (3) Part B were put to him, when it was put to him how unacceptable were all the outrageous implications of the use of that machinery for what amounts to legislation in this country in the future, his defence was in tatters; it was hardly a defence at

  1583
  all. But after a rather tortuous intellectual journey around the subject he came back to say, "Well, it is necessary to the Community, to the carrying out of our obligations in signing the treaties, and to our effort to join the European Communities." It was precisely that word "necessary" that everyone else rejected. One thing that is clear, on which Marketeers and anti-Marketeers can unite, is that subsection (3) Part B is not necessary to the treaties or to the Bill. It is a hair shirt the Government have put on. They do not have to do it. It deals with future treaties, not those at present agreed, not treaties that fall within the sphere of the Community decision-making, not Community treaties, but future treaties linked with the purposes of the Community to which we should be cosignatories.
  How we carry out those treaties in the future is for us to decide. The Government have chosen this way, a way that in the end comes down to the weight that any of us would want to place on getting an affirmative Resolution through both Houses. That is the defence. All that is left is that affirmative Resolution procedure. The Government did not have to choose that as the only way to approve a new treaty in which this country is involved with the Communities.
  We are not talking about small matters. Look at what has happened already. In April, 1970, there was the Luxembourg Treaty, in which the Community signed the "own resources" arrangements, taking a taxing power, agreeing to take from the member States the yield of three taxes that we know all about. Another major treaty is obviously in the pipeline. In the papers this morning we read that the prospect of monetary and economic union, which contains a most appalling threat for this country, is nearer. We need not go into the merits now, but it is a matter of enormous importance.
  Can it be said that the right way to deal with either of those matters is for the Minister concerned to ask for an affirmative Resolution? It is unbelievable. There are references to the Luxembourg Treaty as a second Rome Treaty. It has taken long enough to begin to digest the first. Now we are to have the
  1584
  second one, as it were, thrust down our throats in what might be a half day's debate or, if the rules are relaxed, a one-day debate. It is quite unthinkable that this should be so, and I come back to the point that it is not necessary.
  10.45 p.m.
  Those who wish to go ahead with this European venture, those who still, goodness knows how after the debate of today, sustain their enthusiasm for this cause, can still vote against this Clause, or, rather, vote for the Amendment that we propose, and can vote with an absolutely clear conscience. I go further: they can have more than a clear conscience they are in a happy position for once of being able to serve Europe and their country at the same time because of the remarkable opportunity which we by our Amendment have placed before the Committee. I urge them and both sides of the Committee to do just that in a few moment's time.
  My last point is to draw attention once again to, and to underline, the manifest absurdity of the proposal of the ad hoc Committee. Those who were here at the time will, I think, agree that the Solicitor-General, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, never appeared less happy, never appeared to be more worried, even when they had friendly smiling faces, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has, than on this question of what this join ad hoc committee was supposed to do, and whether it was to be, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman almost suggested it should be, a kind of substitute House of Commons in the future, and whether all these matters which they are unable to answer and deal with in debate here would somehow be dealt with by a body whose membership and composition and terms of reference have not yet been thought out. We must reject that as offering any solution at all to the problem which in this debate so far we have revealed.
  When the Question is put, perhaps fairly soon now, I hope the Committee will remember my words.
  Mr. Norman Buchan rose—
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Pym)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 198, Noes 170.

  Division No. 75.]

  AYES

  [10.50 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Astor, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Awdry, Daniel

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Percival, Ian

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Havers, Michael

  Pounder, Rafton

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Blaker, Peter

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Raison, Timothy

  Body, Richard

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

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Boscawen, Robert

  Holland, Philip

  Redmond, Robert

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hordern, Peter

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Braine, Bernard

  Hornby, Richard

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Bray, Ronald

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Bryan, Paul

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Ridsdale, Julian

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

  Hunt, John

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Burden, F. A.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  James, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Jessel, Toby

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Rost, Peter

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jopling, Michael

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Clegg, Walter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Scott, Nicholas

  Cockeram, Eric

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Sharples, Richard

  Cooke, Robert

  Kershaw, Anthony

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

  Coombs, Derek

  Klifedder, James

  Simeons, Charles

  Cooper, A. E.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Cormack, Patrick

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Soref, Harold

  Costain, A. P.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Speed, Keith

  Critchley, Julian

  Kitson, Timothy

  Spence, John

  Crouch, David

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Stainton, Keith

  Curran, Charles

  Knox, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Lane, David

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Maj -Gen. James

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Stoddart-Scolt, Col. Sir M.

  Dean, Paul

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

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

  Sutcliffe, John

  Drayson, G. B.

  Longden, Gilbert

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

  Dykes, Hugh

  MacArthur, Ian

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Temple, John M.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  McLaren, Martin

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

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

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

  Emery, Peter

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Tilney, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  McMaster, Stanley

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Fell, Anthony

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Madel, David

  Waddington, David

  Fidler, Michael

  Marten, Neil

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Mather, Carol

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Maude, Angus

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Warren, Kenneth

  Fortescue, Tim

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Fox, Marcus

  Miscampbell, Norman

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Fry, Peter

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

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Moate, Roger

  Wilkinson, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Gorst, John

  Monro, Hector

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Gower, Raymond

  More, Jasper

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Grant Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Gray, Hamish

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Green, Alan

  Morrison, Charles

  Worsley, Marcus

  Grieve, Percy

  Murton, Oscar

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Grylls, Michael

  Neave, Airey

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Onslow, Cranley

  Mr. Victor Goodhew and Mr. John Stradling Thomas

  Gurden, Harold

  Osborn, John

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford E.)

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Booth, Albert

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Baxter, William

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

  Ashton, Joe

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Biffen, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Pardoe, John

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Pendry, Tom

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Pentland, Norman

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Prescott, John

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hunter, Adam

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Probert, Arthur

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

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dalyell, Tam

  John, Brynmor

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

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn(W. Ham, S.)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Deakins, Eric

  Judd, Frank

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Kaufman, Gerald

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

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kerr, Russell

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Dempsey, James

  Lambie, David

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Doig, Peter

  Lamond, James

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sillars, James

  Driberg, Tom

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Skinner, Dennis

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Dunn, James A.

  McElhone, Frank

  Spearing, Nigel

  Eadie, Alex

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Edelman, Maurice

  Mackie, John

  Stallard, A. W.

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Steel, David

  Ellis, Tom

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  English, Michael

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Evans, Fred

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

  Strang, Gavin

  Ewing, Harry

  Marks, Kenneth

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Faulds, Andrew

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

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

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Meacher, Michael

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Tinn, James

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Tomney, Frank

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mendelson, John

  Urwin, T. W.

  Foley, Maurice

  Millan, Bruce

  Varley, Eric G.

  Foot, Michael

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Garrett, W. E.

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

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Wallace, George

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Weitzman, David

  Golding, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Moyle, Roland

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Whitlock, William

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Ogden, Eric

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Oram, Bert

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Woof, Robert

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Hamling, William

  Oswald, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Harper, Joseph

  Paget, R. T.

  Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. James Wellbeloved

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Hattersley, Roy

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 172, Noes 195.

  Division No. 76.]

  AYES

  [10.58 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Dunn, James A.

  Ashton, Joe

  Coleman, Donald

  Eadie, Alex

  Atkinson, Norman

  Concannon, J. D.

  Edelman, Maurice

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Ellis, Tom

  Baxter, William

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

  English, Michael

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Cunningham. Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Evans, Fred

  Biffen, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ewing, Henry

  Bishop, E. S.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Fell, Anthony

  Body, Richard

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Booth, Albert

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

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

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Deakins, Eric

  Foley, Maurice

  Buchan, Norman

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Foot, Michael

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Garrett, W. E.

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Dempsey, James

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Carmichael, Neil

  Doig, Peter

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Golding, John

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Driberg, Tom

  Gourlay, Harry

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

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

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Marten, Neil

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Hamling, William

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mendelson, John

  Sillars, James

  Hattersley, Roy

  Millan, Bruce

  Skinner, Dennis

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Hooson, Emlyn

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

  Spearing, Nigel

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Moyle, Roland

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Strang, Gavin

  Hunter, Adam

  Ogden, Eric

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  O'Malley, Brian

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

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oram, Bert

  Tinn, James

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Tomney, Frank

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Orme, Stanley

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Urwin, T. W.

  John, Brynmor

  Paget, R. T.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wainwright, Edwin

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

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Judd, Frank

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Wallace, George

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Pendry, Tom

  Weitzman, David

  Kerr, Russell

  Pentland, Norman

  Wellbeloved, James

  Lambie, David

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch.

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Lamond, James

  Prescott, John

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Whitlock, William

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  McElhone, Frank

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Woof, Robert

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Mackie, John

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. Joseph Harper.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Sandelson, Neville

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

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hornby, Richard

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Astor, John

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

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Emery, Peter

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Eyre, Reginald

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Hunt, John

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Fidler, Michael

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  James, David

  Blaker, Peter

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Jessel, Toby

  Boscawen, Robert

  Fortescue, Tim

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Fox, Marcus

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Brain, Bernard

  Fry, Peter

  Jopling, Michael

  Bray, Ronald

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Goodhart, Philip

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gorst, John

  Kimball, Marcus

  Bryan, Paul

  Gower, Raymond

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Burden, F. A.

  Gray, Hamish

  Kitson, Timothy

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Green, Alan

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Carlisle, Mark

  Grieve, Percy

  Knox, David

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Churchill, W. S.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Lambton, Antony

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Lane, David

  Clegg, Walter

  Grylls, Michael

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Cockeram, Eric

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Cooke, Robert

  Gurden, Harold

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Coombs, Derek

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

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

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Costain, A. P.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Critchley, Julian

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  McLaren, Martin

  Crouch, David

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Curran, Charles

  Haselhurst, Alan

  McMaster, Stanley

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Havers, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hawkins, Paul

  Madel, David

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

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Mather, Carol

  Dean, Paul

  Hiley, Joseph

  Maude, Angus

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

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

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Holland, Philip

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Oykes, Hugh

  Hordern, Peter

  Miscampbell, Norman

  1590

  1591

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

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Temple, John M.

  Monro, Hector

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  More, Jasper

  Ridsdale, Julian

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

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Morrison, Charles

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Tilney, John

  Murton, Oscar

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Waddington, David

  Neave, Airey

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Rost, Peter

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Osborn John

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Warren, Kenneth

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Sharples, Richard

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

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

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Pardoe, John

  Simeons, Charles

  Wilkinson, John

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Percival, Ian

  Soref, Harold

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Speed, Keith

  Pounder, Rafton

  Spence, John

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Stainton, Keith

  Worsley, Marcus

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Raison, Timothy

  Steel, David

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Mr. Victor Goodhew and Mr. John Stradling Thomas.

  Redmond, Robert

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed: No. 81, in page 2, line 5, leave out from 'into' to 'as' in line 7.—[Mr. Powell.]
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 170, Noes 190.

  Division No. 77.]

  AYES

  [11.7 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Fell, Anthony

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Ashton, Joe

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Atkinson, Norman

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

  Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

  Foley, Maurice

  Marks, Kenneth

  Baxter, William

  Foot, Michael

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Ford, Ben

  Marten, Neil

  Biffen, John

  Garrett, W. E.

  Meacher, Michael

  Bishop, E. S.

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Body, Richard

  Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

  Mendelson, John

  Booth, Albert

  Golding, John

  Millan, Bruce

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

  Gourlay, Harry

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

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

  Buchan, Norman

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Butler. Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Campbell, I (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Moyle, Roland

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hamling, William

  Ogden, Eric

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Oram, Bert

  Coleman, Donald

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Orme, Stanley

  Conlan, Bernard

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Oswald, Thomas

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

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Paget, R. T.

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Davies, Denzil (Lianelly)

  Hunter, Adam

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pendry, Tom

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pentland, Norman

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Deakins, Eric

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Prescott, John

  de Freitas. Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  John, Brynmor

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dempsey. James

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Probert, Arthur

  Doig, Peter

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

  Rees Merlyn (Leeds, E.)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Driberg, Tom

  Judd, Frank

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

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rose, Paul B.

  Dunn, James A.

  Kerr, Russell

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lambie, David

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Edelman Maurice

  Lamond, James

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Ellis, Tom

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  English, Michael

  McElhone, Frank

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Evans, Fred

  Mackenzie, Gregor

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

  Ewing, Henry

  Mackie, John

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

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

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Tinn, James

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Sillars, James

  Tomney, Frank

  Whitlock, William

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Varley, Eric G.

  Woof, Robert

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Stallard, A. W.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Wallace, George

  Strang, Gavin

  Weitzman, David

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Wellbeloved, James

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Grylls, Michael

  Neave, Airey

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Gummer, J. Selwyn

  Onslow, Cranley

  Astor, John

  Gurden, Harold

  Osborn, John

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Pardoe, John

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Percival, Ian

  Blaker, Peter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Havers, Michael

  Pounder, Rafton

  Boscawen, Robert

  Hawkins, Paul

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Braine, Sir Bernard

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

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Bray, Ronald

  Holland, Philip

  Redmond, Robert

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hordern, Peter

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hornby, Richard

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Bryan, Paul

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

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

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Burden, F. A.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk N.)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Carlisie, Mark

  Hunt, John

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Churchill, W. S.

  James, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Clegg, Walter

  Jessel, Toby

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Rost, Peter

  Cooke, Robert

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Coombs, Derek

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Sharples, Richard

  Cooper, A. E.

  Kershaw, Anthony

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

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kimball, Marcus

  Simeons, Charles

  Costain, A. P.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset S.)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Critchley, Julian

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Soref, Harold

  Crouch, David

  Kitson, Timothy

  Spence, John

  Curran, Charles

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Stainton, Keith

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Knox, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Lambton, Lord

  Steel, David

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

  Lane, David

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Dean, Paul

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Dykes, Hugh

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

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Longden, Sir Gilbert

  Temple, John M.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Luce, R. N.

  Thomas, John (Stradling (Monmouth)

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

  MacArthur, Ian

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Emery, Peter

  McCrindle, R. A

  Tilney, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  McLaren, Martin

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Fidler, Michael

  McMaster, Stanley

  Waddington, David

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Madel, David

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mather, Carol

  Warren, Kenneth

  Fortescue, Tim

  Maude, Angus

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Fry, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Goodhart, Philip

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wilkinson, John

  Goodhew, Victor

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

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Gorst, John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Gower, Raymond

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Monro, Hector

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Gray, Hamish

  More, Jasper

  Worsley, Marcus

  Green, Alan

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Grieve, Percy

  Morrison, Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Murton, Oscar

  Mr. Keith Speed and Mr. Michael Jopling.

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Question accordingly negatived.
  [Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Jay: I beg to move Amendment No. 97, in page 2, line 6, at end insert 'or other States'.
  I hope that I am in order, in the interests of humanity to the Solicitor-General, in offering him my sympathy for the great patience with which he has done his best to defend a quite indefensible Bill. We all understand the position in which he has been placed by the Government and the impossibility of his getting out of it any better than he did this afternoon.
  The Amendment seeks to insert after the words
  "with or without any of the member States"
  the additional words "or other States". We have had some discussion today whether the words
  "with or without any of the member States"
  really add anything to the meaning of the Clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman assured us that they did. There fore, I shall proceed for the moment on the assumption that he was right.
  I understand the Solicitor-General's argument to be that if those words had not been included it might have been supposed that a treaty made by the Community, together with another member State, was excluded from the effects of the Bill. We have also got it clear that the words "with or without" mean with or without a co-signatory of the treaty in question. Therefore, on the assumption that that is the meaning of the Clause and that these words have some real effect, we would like to know why only member States of the Community should be included.
  Why should we not include European States other than members of the Community? There is a constant confusion in these debates between the Common Market and Europe. Throughout this controversy I have often been moved to think that if many people did not use so much muddled language there would not be so much muddled thought and so many muddled and wrong conclusions. The expressions which I have heard even in this Committee about "joining" or "going into" Europe are peculiarly odious forms of illiteracy. Could we not say what we really mean?
  I hope it may not be a hopeless aspiration to suggest that if we mean the Com-
  1596
  mon Market we should say "the Common Market", if we mean E.F.T.A. we should say "E.F.T.A.", if we mean the Continent, as many people seem to mean when the say "Europe", we should say "the Continent" and, finally, if we mean Europe we should say "Europe". I suggest that the confusion arises from the language of many people who seem to believe that this country is not part of Europe at all. The word "Europe" is constantly used as meaning something different from this country.
  This country cannot get into or join Europe because we are already just as much a part of Europe as Greece, Bulgaria or Portugal. I hope that that may command general support in this assembly. It is therefore of some interest, to get these things in proportion, to look at some figures of population in the various units which are covered by this Clause in the Continent of Europe.
  Some of these conclusions may surprise some people. First, the total population of Europe—I am using words to mean what they really mean—is, on the latest figure, 648 million, and the population of the Common Market is only 189 million—about a third of the population of Europe. That in itself is an important reason for not confusing the two.
  Second, the population of the Soviet Union in Europe is almost exactly equal to that of the Common Market. When some people use the word "Europe" to mean the Common Market, they may be surprised to discover this fact. The other Communist countries of Eastern Europe, apart from the Soviet Union, have a population of another 125 million. So more than 300 million people in Europe live in the Soviet Union and the other Communist countries—not far from double the population of the Common Market.
  I mention these figures to get the position a little more into perspective and to suggest to the Government we should narrow our vision in this debate or in this controversy as a whole merely to the present six members of the E.E.C. and call them the Common Market. It also enables us to see some of the extraordinary conclusions which will follow if the Government persist with the Bill and with their present policy regardless of what the other nations of Europe are doing.

  1597
  One consequence of the United Kingdom pressing ahead to join at any cost will be the breaking up of E.F.T.A., leaving it as a residual fragment. Indeed. we have the extraordinary position, which is hardly ever discussed in these debates, of the three other applicant countries of E.F.T.A.—Norway, Denmark and Ireland—intending to hold referenda before joining the E.E.C. They are showing both greater democratic sentiment and greater wisdom.
  For the purpose of this discussion, we should know what his country will do if two or three of the other applicant countries decide by referenda not to join. Is it really proposed that we should push ahead regardless of the break-up of E.F.T.A., leaving those countries on their own and showing ourselves to be less democratic and less intelligent than not merely Norway and Denmark but Southern Ireland? Incidentally, the Prime Minister is proposing to permit a referendum in Northern Ireland. It seems that this procedure is to be denied alone to the people of the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: What does the right hon. Gentleman consider will happen if, as a result of the referendum in the Irish Republic, the Government there decide not to proceed to accession? Will the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement continue in those circumstances? Might not this consideration modify what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying about the Irish Republic?
  Mr. Jay: No. If we press on with our application to join the E.E.C. and the population of the Irish Republic decide not to join, then we should be bound to raise the normal common external tariff against Southern Ireland. We should be faced with the extraordinary consequence that, having got rid of the tariff barrier between Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, we should be forced to reimpose it. I am glad the hon. Gentleman intervened, because it brings home one of the realities of the situation.
  There is another extraordinary and ironical consequence of breaking up E.F.T.A. and destroying a free trade area which we helped to construct. It appears that the E.E.C. Commission is making an offer to E.F.T.A. non-
  1598
  applicant countries of an industrial free trade area without any of the burdens of the C.A.P. It seems that by this offer those countries will gain all the benefits of industrial free trade with the whole of the enlarged Community and all the other E.F.T.A. countries without any of the horrors of the C.A.P. or the bureaucratic apparatus in Brussels.
  Mr. Deakins: Is it not clear, therefore, that the price we shall be paying will be not for any economic benefits—my right hon. Friend has explained how they can be gained free by virtue of some sort of free trade area association—but for the so-called political advantages? This helps to put the Government's application into its true perspective: that our contributions to the cost of the common agricultural policy, for example, would be not for compensating industrial benefit but for the so-called political advantage.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Jay: The truest way of putting it, to summarise briefly would be this: that we should incur all the economic disadvantages and all the political disadvantages, the incredible disadvantages of the mutilation of our parliamentary system that we have been discussing today. We should incur both of those at the same time. As for the economic burdens of the common agricultural policy, we should be the only country in Europe, either in the E.E.C. or the E.F.T.A., which would have the greater part of these burdens inflicted on our population. That, it seems, as a result of this policy, is the direction in which we are being led or misled, by the Government at present.
  I do not believe that the Prime Minister, or, perhaps, even the Chancellor of the Duchy, understands these facts or realises what the Government are doing or where their policy is leading. But those are the real facts behind these debates.
  This extraordinary situation into which we have got and into which we are falling more deeply month by month is due to the grotesque obsession with this one organisation, the E.E.C., and this one group of six countries in one corner of Europe to the exclusion of all the other much more populous nations of Europe, quite regardless of the Commonwealth

  1599
  and the rest of the world. Whatever else we do in these debates, I hope that we shall not lose sight of those facts in the midst of all the legal niceties we are rightly discussing.
  [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the chair]
  Mr. Edward Taylor: This is a very narrow Amendment but it is sufficiently wide to enable me to raise one question which has been of serious interest in Scotland and which I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to answer.
  The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has dealt with the Amendment to add the words "or other States" in relation to non-member States outwith the Common Market, but my point relates to other States which are part of the member States of the Community. Bearing in mind the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman, will it still be possible for the British Parliament in the future under the Clause, as at present drafted, once it becomes law—if it does—to grant sovereign independence to any part of the United Kingdom and to release that part of the United Kingdom from the treaty obligations which are being taken on by the United Kingdom.
  This may be regarded as a hypothetical point, and I am in no way proposing or suggesting that Scotland should have independence, or any other part of the United Kingdom; but we know that this is not entirely a hypothetical question. For example, the Crowther Commission is examining the whole constitutional future of the United Kingdom, and political initiatives are at present being considered for Northern Ireland. We have not the slightest idea what those initiatives may be. On the one hand, they may suggest integration of Ulster within the United Kingdom, completely and absolutely, as with Scotland. On the other hand, they may suggest a rather looser bond. Who knows, the time may come when Ulster may wish to be not part of the United Kingdom but separate.
  It appears that at present Parliament could, if it so desired, give complete sovereign independence to any part of the United Kingdom, whether it be Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or any other part. It further seems that in terms
  1600
  of the Clause and the treaty obligations we are undertaking, this power will no longer be available to the House of Commons. If that is so—I am not saying that it is, I should like my right hon. and learned Friend's views—it would appear to me that any development in constitutional devolution within the United Kingdom or any move to grant a degree of independence to any part of the United Kingdom would cease to be a function of this assembly but would have to be undertaken by the European Economic Community, and it would appear that some amendment to the treaty would have to be undertaken.
  I honestly do not know the answers to these questions, but on this simple point, which I believe to be very important for the United Kingdom, looking to the future, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend can answer. Will Britain still have power to grant sovereign independence, and would we be able to release any part of the United Kingdom from the treaty obligations entered into by Britain?
  Mr. Stanley Orme: I want to follow the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) about other States which are applicants for membership of the Community. This seems to be one of the few opportunities we shall have to discuss the question of other applicants, about which the Government have told us extremely little. By the way in which the negotiations have been carried on, one would almost think that those countries were applying to some other organisation than the Six.
  The Republic of Ireland is a classic example. Irrespective of what it does in a referendum, which will be only consultative and not mandatory, the Republic because of economic links with the United Kingdom, will have no choice but to follow the United Kingdom if we decide to join the Six. The common agricultural policy would be torn into shreds. I should like the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to tell us what consultations he has had with the Republic on this. Discussing it with politicians in the Republic, both those who are pro and those who are anti, I found that many agree that, while there would be some benefits to the Republic, some effects on

  1601
  industry would be very bad, especially for industrialisation, which should be speeded there.
  I am no authority on agricultural policy, but reading what Mr. Lynch and Mr. Brendan Corish, the leader of the Irish Labour Party, have written, I find that if the Republic decided not to join and were left separate from the United Kingdom this could have dramatic effects for the Republic. Difficulties rise to the surface only when a particular point of negotiation is brought to our attention. We have noticed how the Chancellor of the Duchy tried to slide around the special arrangements made with reference to Norway's fishing industry compared with those for this country. There is a strong possibility that Norway may reject entry primarily because of interference with her economy, but also because she is a country with strong democratic traditions which she is not prepared to sell for the mess of pottage to be obtained from the Treaty of Rome as this Government are prepared to sell ours. There are people in Europe, many in Norway and the Republic of Ireland, who are present to stand up and say that, irrespective of the disadvantages, they are not prepared to go along with this policy. The same can be said of Denmark, because the recent elections there tended to show mounting pressure against entry. The four applicant countries applied to join at the same time, and if they joined they would become members at about the same time also. Their economies would he affected, as in the case of the Republic of Ireland, and the whole basis and structure of E.F.T.A. would be affected, too, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said. He is an outstanding authority on this issue on which he is listened to with great respect.
  It is strange that in these circumstances there has been no assessment of the effect upon the Common Market if one or all three of the other applicants did not join the E.E.C. when we joined. That would have not only political but serious economic repercussions. This shows the value of the Amendment because it gives us an opportunity to raise issues concerning the other States with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Many of us have received representations particularly from Norway and the Republic of Ireland
  1602
  which I could read out but I think it is sufficient to make the point in a short contribution.
  We must be given information on the matters about which we are concerned. They have not been dealt with sufficiently and I hope the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will give us more information about the economic and political considerations which will affect the other applicant countries.
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: On a recent visit to Denmark I was distressed to find that the long-standing friendship between our two countries has been jeopardised, and especially the ties between the Social Democratic Party and the trade unions with which I have been associated, because of our application. Many Danes were anxious to stay out of the Common Market but because of the increase in their agricultural trade with Britain and their exports to Europe they felt they were being pre-empted by our application. This is why there should be a much closer association between this country and Denmark before we are finally and irrevocably committed to joining. During my visit I was given many reasons why it would be better for Denmark to stay out if only Britain would do the same.
  The Amendment concerns not only Britain's application to join the E.E.C. but the repercussions on our friends in the rest of Europe.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: Surely the hon. Member recognises the advantages to Denmark of being in a Common Market which will contain Britain and Germany, on which countries is based her traditional pattern of trade, will give her inestimable advantages and it would be folly for her to embark on any other course?
  11.45 p.m.
  Mr. Pavitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am merely recording the opposite point of view put to me in Copenhagen quite recently, that a number of disadvantages were being pre-empted by the weight of Great Britain's application. That is the point to which I should like the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to address himself.
  Mr. Deakins: I support my right hon. and hon. Friends on the matter of the other States, particularly the E.F.T.A. States. I want also to raise briefly a technical matter.
  The E.F.T.A. countries as a whole, whatever their views about the Common Market, are unhappy behind the scenes about the way in which the negotiations have been conducted. We may well have been keeping them informed at E.F.T.A. Council meetings, but we have been doing only the minimum. I know from some of my political contacts in Scandinavia that the Swedes and the Danes in particular have been extremely unhappy. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Swiss."] I cannot speak for other E.F.T.A. countries. Although we have been sticking to the letter of our E.F.T.A. obligations, it is unlikely that we have been sticking to their spirit.
  A Labour Government applied to enter the Community, but they were concerned to look after the interests of our E.F.T.A. partners. It is not good enough for any Government to say, "Pull up the ladder, Jack. I am aboard." The Government are saying, "We are almost in. Let the others do what they can. We shall keep in touch and even make representations from time to time, but if you do not achieve satisfactory relationships, hard luck." The only concession the Government have made to the strength of feeling on both sides of the Committee about our moral obligations to our E.F.T.A. partners is to say that at least there will be no re-erection of trade barriers between E.F.T.A. States that stay out and those that go in.
  Mr. John E. B. Hill: We must all speak for our own contacts with those from E.F.T.A. countries. There have been very good relations between Members of the British Parliament and members of E.F.T.A. Parliaments at the Council of Europe.
  Mr. Deakins: I am very happy to say that I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I am talking about contacts at perhaps a rather higher level. They are unofficial, and, therefore, I cannot mention names, including Ministers, but they are people who have been involved in the negotiations.
  Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster reassure us on the following
  1604
  point? The Community has not gone as far on a sensitive matter like paper exports and imports as the Swedes would like, or, I suggest, as we should like in ensuring that in no circumstances should there be any re-erection of trade barriers between those Scandinavian countries that are big paper producers and the rest of an enlarged Community.
  My technical point is one that has not been raised in any of our debates on the Common Market—the position of East Germany. In the Treaty of Rome there is a protocol, which appears on page 125 of Cmnd. 4864, headed
  "Protocol on German Internal trade and Connected Problems".
  The protocol exempts what are called
  "German territories in which the Basic Law does not apply"—
  in other words, East Germany—from the normal effects of being a non-member of the Common Market. In fact, East Germany is half in and half out, a peculiar position in international law and one that since we are accepting the Treaty of Rome we must accept. But if East Germany is eventually recognised by this and other countries as an independent State, will it then be able to make trade agreements with the Common Market as a whole, or will all future commercial dealings within an enlarged Community with East Germany, which I believe is the fifth largest industrial country in the world in terms of output, have to go through the medium of West Germany under the protocol?
  This is a very important point which affects our future trading relationships. What I should like to know is whether, in the event of East Germany being recognised by this country and other countries, we shall have the right, despite what is said here, to make an independent trading treaty with East Germany if it is to our advantage to do so. At the moment it is unclear whether that unhappy country is in or is not in the Common Market. For instance, its agricultural products are exempt in many cases from the provisions of the common agricultural policy—levies and so on.
  It is interesting that there is two-way trade between East and West Germany, and it is a big hole in the wall of the Common Market. Should we be allowed to take advantage of that trade loophole? Or is it confined exclusively to East and

  1605
  West Germany? It would be nice to know. Otherwise we shall find ourselves denied in the enlarged Community the ability to enter into trade relationships further to those that we have at the moment with one of the strongest industrial countries in the world.
  Mr. Spearing: I had understood that while we would have advantage for our manufacturing industry we would have the disadvantage of the common agricultural policy. From what my hon. Friend has just said it appears as though advantages are open to East Germany under this protocol? Can my hon. Friend explain that?
  Mr. Deakins: I cannot explain it because I do not know what was in the minds of the other Community countries at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Rome. We were not there. All I can say at this stage, 15 years later, is that it is quite incredible that the Community still allows to go on a complete breach of the whole Community policy of tariff barriers, the common agricultural policy, and so on, in respect merely of one nonmember State.
  Mr. English: In one sentence, through my hon. Friend—and I thank him for giving way—I would like to ask whether the treaty between West and East Germany, not yet ratified, affects this issue.
  Mr. Deakins: I do not know the answer to that, but I think I have said sufficient at least to give the Chancellor of the Duchy something to reply to, apart from the valuable and important points raised about E.F.T.A.
  Mr. David Clark: I shall not develop the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins), except to say that I think the point he made about East Germany is a valid one if the Common Market is to be the outward-looking body in Europe that we all hope it will he and as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are so much in favour of the Market keep telling us it is.
  I should like briefly to take up a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). It seemed to me that in a nutshell he summed up the basic misunderstanding which many people in this country have about the attitude of
  1606
  the Scandinavian countries which have applied to join the Market at the same time as we have. He said that Denmark would be happy to get the economic advantages of being in a community with a market as large as that containing Britain and Germany, and economically he may be right. But what worries the Danes about the Common Market is not the purely economic issue. It is much deeper. It is the fact that the way of life and the standards and values of Denmark and Norway are very different in terms of tradition and their form of parliamentary democracy from what is to be found in certain of the E.E.C. countries. This worries the Scandinavian countries, and it also worries some hon. Members on the Opposition benches.
  The Scandinavians have a long tradition of parliamentary democratic government and they are about to carry out referenda. I believe that we could take a lead from them. I cannot accept that this would not fit in with our constitution because, as we have learnt from this debate, we do not know what our constitution implies.
  We and the Scandinavian countries share a common type of health provision which is not applicable in the E.E.C. countries. Only about 10 per cent. of the cost of running our National Health Service is met out of direct contributions, and there are similar arrangements in the Scandinavian countries. But the situation in the E.E.C. countries is quite different since the onus there is on contributions.
  There is serious doubt whether the National Health Service can survive entry into the E.E.C. I do not put that forward as a bogus idea, since this very point of view was advanced by Dr. Grey-Turner, the Deputy Secretary of the B.M.A. and Secretary of the B.M.A. Common Market Committee, in a speech in Luxembourg on 6th December This matter goes beyond the economic considerations to the philosophical argument.
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Does not my hon. Friend concede that the Socialist Prime Minister of Norway, who learned about European unity the hard way, will be campaigning for entry in the forthcoming referendum?
  Mr. Clark: I was going to take that point a stage further by saying that this is one reason why our E.F.T.A. partner

  1607
  of Sweden put in an application at the same time as we did but withdrew it—not primarily for economic reasons but for philosophical reasons. This point is not clearly understood by many hon. Members opposite.
  There is a strong feeling that in the negotiations we have not had as much hard, factual information as we should have had. Protocols have been given to other applicant countries which have not been afforded to us. For example, the Republic of Ireland obtained a protocol dealing with regional development. We have just had vague assurances. We find it difficult to ascertain the Government's attitude on their dealings with our fellow applicant countries which are members of E.F.T.A.
  12 midnight.
  Mr. Rippon: Before dealing with the Amendment I want to make a few brief observations on some of the points that have been raised. I realise that hon. Gentlemen feel strongly about them, even if they do not arise directly out of the Amendment.
  In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), of course it would be possible for us to grant sovereign independence to Scotland. In that hypothetical situation it would be necessary to consider what re-arrangements might be made and what relationships the truncated United Kingdom and Scotland would wish to have with the Community. The sovereign power of Parliament could not be abrogated in that regard. It is not always appreciated that although our intention is to join the Community on a permanent basis, if we are in breach of international obligations at any time all sorts of consequences may flow. But that does not alter the sovereign right of Parliament, in the last resort, to determine our own domestic law and arrangements.
  The recognition of East Germany and the ratification of the treaties are not affected by the Amendment—
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: My right hon. and learned Friend has said, in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), that there would be no impediment to the United Kingdom's granting sovereign independence to Scotland. Is his reason
  1608
  for saying that that the treaties with which we are concerned here are purely economic treaties?
  Mr. Rippon: Whatever the nature of the international obligation into which we are entering, the ultimate sovereignty of Parliament cannot be abrogated in a matter of that kind, although the giving of independence to Scotland would have certain consequences which would affect our relationships in the Community in the way that I have suggested. I trust that it is a wholly hypothetical question. The Amendment does not affect the other matters.
  It is right and proper that hon. Members should be concerned about our relations with E.F.T.A. Right from the outset we have been concerned about these. We have been in close consultation not only with our fellow applicant countries but also with the non-applicant countries which have been seeking various forms of association. I have answered many questions about this matter in the House, and I recently referred the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) to the communiquè that we issued on 11th November, in which general satisfaction was expressed by all the Ministers present on the progress of the negotiations.
  The non-applicant countries are reaching a fairly critical stage in their negotiations. We are still in constant touch. These countries are carrying on negotiations in their own way in the light of the mandate issued by the Community which had regard to the views that we expressed as E.F.T.A. members.
  Points have been raised about public opinion in Eire, Norway and Denmark. It is not proper for me to comment on the way in which those countries determine their own future. All I can say is that Eire, Norway and Denmark signed the treaty on the same day as the United Kingdom and, as acceding countries, we are all going through our own appropriate processes that will, I trust, lead to ratification. All the countries concerned are co-operating in a way that we have been unable to do in recent years; for example, in the preparation of the summit conference to which I recently referred in the House.
  Mr. Jay: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the main question that I put to him? Suppose that, as

  1609
  the result of referenda, the other applicant countries decided not to join, would it be the intention of the British Government to press on regardless of what happened to them?
  Mr. Rippon: That is a hypothetical question. The treaty as drafted and the arrangements made provide that if one or other of the countries which are now acceding States do not ratify certain procedures come into force. If all failed, it would be a different situation. We have stated our policy, for which we are responsible. The Governments in the other countries have stated theirs, and happily we are all agreed that it is to the advantage of all of us that the enlargment of the Community should take place in the way envisaged.
  Mr. Orme: May I press that point? The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that it is hypothetical but it is possible that the Republic of Ireland could take a different decision. Could that not have a tremendous bearing not only on the Republic, but on this country, and affect the basis of our application?
  Mr. Rippon: We have stated our policy. We have signed the treaty and are going through the necessary legislative process which will enable us to ratify in due course. Other Governments are doing the same thing. It is not for us to intervene—certainly not on this Amendment. I do not want to say too much about that because the Solicitor-General has earlier replied in substance to the point made by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). In so far as there is any discrepancy between what I say and what my hon. and learned Friend says it would probably be better to prefer the view of my hon. and learned Friend. As I understand it, lines 5 and 6 as they stand bring in all future treaties concluded by the Community in its own right.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred earlier to the words:
  "… any other treaty entered into by any of the Communities with or without any of the member States …".
  He was concerned with the meaning of the words "with or without". I assure him that the words are not restrictive. Their purpose is to make clear that any or all member States may join as co-
  1610
  signatories with the Community. They do not indicate who the other party to that treaty might be. That is left entirely at large, and I suggest that that is right. If we were to add "or any other States", it might be harmful, because the Bill would be regarded as comprehensive in saying that the parties to any treaty should be simply any other States, whereas the Community also makes treaties with public international organisations, as my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said. He cited the case of the International Labour Organisation. I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will feel it unnecessary to press this Amendment.
  Mr. Michael Foot: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has urged us not to press the Amendment, and I shall have something to say about that later. I will certainly consider the proposition, in the light of the circumstances, if that is the proper way to put it. I am not suggesting that it is the most epoch-making Amendment that could be devised. I take that into account in deciding whether we should withdraw it.
  We are in some difficulty from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, because he has said that as between the utterances of the Solicitor-General and himself, we would always be well advised to prefer the Solicitor-General. That is one of the truest statements the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made, but, unfortunately, we have not the advantage of having the Solicitor-General here now and we shall have to rely entirely on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statements. How do we know about what he tells us? Since our confidence in the Solicitor-General was reduced to a zero point earlier, the right hon. and learned Gentleman can estimate from that our confidence in his remarks.
  If it were not for my charitable nature, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement would be sufficient grounds to press the Amendment to a Division. But before I conclude by withdrawing—and I shall keep the enticing part to the end so that hon. Members continue to listen to me—I am bound to comment that the Committee should listen during the following debate because we shall seek to find some means—and the possibilities of civilisation are not exhausted in securing Amendments—we must secure some way

  1611
  to discuss properly our relations with all the E.F.T.A. applicants.
  Some of us think that the situation is not satisfactory and that it is not satisfactory that we should brush aside the possibilities of those countries taking decisions in their referenda. If it is the case that Denmark and Norway—and they probably go together—decide not to make an application, it would be wrong for this country to proceed with their application without taking into account the consequences for those countries with which we have had long associations. It would be most improper not to take it into account. That applies even more strongly to the Republic of Ireland. The people of Ireland have a perfect right to decide whether they express their full-hearted consent on these matters. They have a better chance, maybe, to express themselves on these matters. The same applies to the people of Denmark and Norway. I suggest that although this matter does not arise directly on this Amendment, we should regard it as of the utmost seriousness.
  Today I went to a meeting of the Foreign Press Association, and journalists from Denmark and Norway were seriously suggesting that the proposition would be rejected. The observations of the British Government will have to be involved if that arises. In any case, we shall have to look at some stage, although I concede that there are difficulties, at the possibility of tabling an Amendment on which this can be properly discussed.
  Going back to the matter in which the Committee is more interested, we have had two days of major importance for the future of the House of Commons, and, although the Government have secured a vote at the end of those debates, what has been said in them will continue to have an effect on the thinking of the House during the whole of the proceedings on this Bill.
  So those of us who have put these Amendments yesterday and today hope that the House will examine most carefully what has been said and see objectively and freely whether the proper answer is given by the Government. Our view is that no satisfactory answer has been given, by the Solicitor-General or
  1612
  the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to arguments of the most profound importance for the future of the House.
  Having said that, I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman about this Amendment, though no doubt it should be done on a Motion to report Progress, that if he will indicate to me that we shall not proceed any further with this Committee stage tonight, I shall be prepared to advise my hon. Friends to support me in withdrawing the Amendment and in not proceeding to any further debate. On that basis, I hope that we may conclude our proceedings, and that all hon. Members will go away to read and re-read what has been said in the debates over the last two days about the future of this House.
  Mr. Rippon: I am happy to say that I think that I can respond equally charitably to the hon. Gentleman. We have made good progress today, and, if the Amendment is to be withdrawn, well and good.
  Mr. Foot rose—
  The Chairman: Order. I think that the Question will have to be negatived because the hon. Gentleman rose.
  Question put and negatived.
  To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Rippon.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

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

  BRADFORD (ECONOMIC PROSPECTS)
  12.16 a.m.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: I am glad to have this opportunity to raise the question of special intermediate area status for the Bradford region. Eleven months ago, on the eve of the Easter Recess, I raised a similar matter on the Adjournment, when I discussed the economic prospects of Bradford, in the course of which I coined the phrase that we wanted no Maundy money.

  1613
  It was thought at that time that Government hand-outs were not necessarily the correct basis on which to create a local economy with high employment, economic growth and increased prosperity. It was my hope that the expansionist measures which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had recently announced in his Budget, plus any subsequent reflationary packages, would be beneficial in bringing about a more buoyant local economy.
  At the same time, I voiced my anxiety about the inflexible regional policies that we had inherited from the previous Administration. The arbitrary distinctions between those areas adjacent to Bradford designated as development or intermediate areas put Bradford itself and its immediate neighbourhood at a relative disadvantage.
  To recapitulate those earlier arguments, expansion in Bradford's mail order business, for example, took place in nearby Wakefield, which is part of an intermediate area. Likewise, expansion in Bradford-based wool textiles, which would normally have been expected to take place in Bradford itself, instead took place in two instances in the Northern Development Area, in Scotland, in Barrow-in-Furness, and in Cumbernauld, respectively.
  It is my belief that it is an inefficient policy, as well as one which makes bad sense economically, which encourages the artificial expansion of an indigenous industry in regions remote from the source of its skilled and experienced man power.
  It was not for lack of well-researched advice that the last Government got their regional policies wrong. The Hunt Committee on the Intermediate Areas recommended intermediate area status for Yorkshire and Humberside as a whole, as well as for the north-west economic region. Concerning Yorkshire and Humberside, in particular, the last Government implemented these proposals only in part, giving North Humberside and South Yorkshire intermediate area status, while leaving the rest undesignated. That was despite the forecast in their Green Paper. "Economic Assessment to 1972", published in 1969, which said that the greatest increase in unemployment in the period in question would be likely to take place in Yorkshire and Humberside.
  1614
  On 8th April last year, when I declared that it would be inappropriate for the City of Bradford to be part of an intermediate area, I said so explicitly in the expectation of a new approach to regional policy which
  "should end or certainly alleviate the regional disparity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April. 1971; Vol. 815 c. 773.]
  Again, at the Conservative Party Conference in October, the debate on trade and industry took place to a resolution moved by Bradford West Conservative Association which called for more flexible regional policies to secure a more equitable spread of prosperity throughout the country. That resolution, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State himself replied, was overwhelmingly carried by the conference.
  Over the past year male unemployment in Bradford has increased by 1·8 per cent., to 7·3 per cent., according to the latest figures. At the same time, average earnings in Yorkshire and Humberside are still the lowest of any industrial region in the country. In fact, the most statistics that I have reinforce these arguments for more flexible policies.
  In particular, over the past year the percentage increase of unemployment, both male and female, in the Bradford-Shipley travel-to-work area have been not only 10 per cent. higher than those increases in the North Humberside intermediate area but, at about 33 per cent., directly comparable with the figures for the northern development area. This is a matter which must seriously be taken into consideration.
  There are those who believe that fiscal or monetary measures alone would alleviate our problems in the Bradford area. Of course, like all industrial areas, we await hopefully my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement on 21st March. In this regard, a further cut in purchase tax, especially on wool textile products, would be helpful, as would reductions in company taxation. In Bradford in recent months we have benefited particularly from earlier reductions in purchase tax, and this has had markedly beneficial effects in the manufacture of colour television sets. However, the manufacture of colour television sets is predominantly helpful from the point of view of female employment, and the difficulty in the Bradford area and the West Riding wool

  1615
  textile district lies in providing male employment. We must be very clear in making that distinction.
  Nevertheless, I am not certain that our local economy will be transformed by reflationary measures alone. Not only are balance of payments criteria bound eventually to limit the expansion of consumer demand at home; the very process of the modernisation of the wool textile industry, which is still our staple industry employing 23 per cent. of the work force, must, as the Atkins Report, 1969, predicted, involve a diminishing demand for manpower as production processes become more capital-intensive and automated.
  It is illuminating to consider changes in production personnel in the wool textile industry from 1947 to 1970, the last available date. To take three areas which particularly affect Bradford, in combing the work force has virtually halved—from 12,500 to 6,400—in worsted spinning it has dropped from 43,900 to 30,000, and in worsted weaving from 28,000 to 15,000. This process is bound to continue. As yet we do not have sufficient diversity of industry—particularly advanced high technology industries with high earning power—to replace this diminishing demand for labour.
  I said in the debate on 24th January that in reshaping our regional policies we must seek more imaginative criteria. The days are past when simple statistics of employment were used. I suggested then that earnings might be one criterion, and that there was a very real need for an exhaustive analysis by regional economic planning councils of the structure and nature of industry in the regions.
  This was very much hinted at in the Hunt Report, in which the question of the situation of growth points was very much left begging, because, Hunt claimed, it was not within his committee's terms of reference. It should be within the terms of reference of the planning councils. It is in view of the possibility of Bradford and its surrounding area becoming a growth point and a focus for expansion that I suggest intermediate area status for the region. That status will not necessarily be retained in perpetuity. I regard it as a shot in the arm—an opportunity for new industry to be attracted on the
  1616
  same terms as in the development and intermediate areas.
  I know that with the review of regional policy currently in train, areas with comparable problems to ours, in Lancashire and other textile districts, are making similar representations. Bolton springs very much to mind in this regard. I noticed with some satisfaction that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said, in reply to a Question by one of the Bolton Members, that in this review he was considering once more the recommendations of the Hunt Committee, that intermediate status should be extended to the whole of Yorkshire and Humberside and the whole of the north-west region.
  Inevitably, I am asked why Bradford is well fitted to be a growth point and why it would benefit especially from development area status. First, communications have benefited enormously under this Government, and Bradford is fast becoming the hub of an effective motorway network which will provide good links with the ports, particularly on Merseyside and at Hull.
  We have our problems even in this regard; air transport springs to mind. We have been greatly inhibited by the lack of a modern international airport, capable of taking the latest jet aircraft. Nevertheless, our communications are good in other respects. There is to be a rail freight depot at Low Moor and a transport interchange in the city. All these things help, and we must have inducements to attract new industry to the area to take advantage of these developments.
  Throughout the Pennines area there are towns and cities with a high proportion of housing stock which pre-dates the first war, and in some instances pre-dates the turn of the century. The greater part of this housing stock is sound, and adequate finance is needed to renovate it.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment has done well to provide 50 per cent. improvement grants for the renewal of housing, but those grants amount to 75 per cent. in development and intermediate areas. We have as high a portion of older housing stock as do many of the big cities in intermediate and development areas, which enjoy these privileges, and in the housing and construction industries there has been a high

  1617
  level of unemployment in recent months. If special intermediate area status were granted we should have an extra 25 per cent. grant, which would be extremely valuable for the renovation, restoration and renewal that is so important.
  I am anxious to be brief because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall) would like to contribute to the debate.
  We are seeking to make our position quite clear in the review of regional policy which is in progress. I hope that my hon. Friend will give an assurance that the points that I have raised on this and previous occasions will be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State, so that Bradford's case is not overlooked in the review of regional policy which is in progress.
  12.33 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I have listened closely to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) has said. He has given a clear and comprehensive survey of Bradford's problems and I fully share his concern about unemployment in the area. Bradford can congratulate itself on having such a vigorous young advocate as its hon. Member.
  We discussed Bradford's situation last April and again in November, and I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for providing another opportunity to do so tonight. It has been disappointing to see the unemployment rate in the Bradford and Shipley area rise over the past year, although it is perhaps some consolation that the rate in January showed no further increase over that in November, when we last debated the subject. However, one knows only too well the human hardship that lies behind the statistics.
  To some extent it is fair to say that the local situation in Bradford has reflected the national position, but this is not to ignore the effect on redundancies and unemployment levels of rationalisation in the wool textile industry. That industry has of course, been going through a difficult period, largely as a result of changes in consumer demand.
  Part of the decline in employment in this sector has come about through the modernisation that this vital industry has
  1618
  undertaken to ensure long-term viability in a different market situation. Despite these difficulties, both employers and trade union officials in the industry have expressed confidence in its future prosperity. Entry to the E.E.C. should certainly improve export prospects. The fact that production in the industry as a whole rose in December, 1971, against the trend of previous months, gives some grounds for hope that the worst of the recession has passed.
  It would, of course, be wrong to leave the impression that Bradford was solely a textile town. Indeed the textile industry there, major as it is, accounts for only about a quarter of those employed. Another quarter is accounted for by other manufacturing industries and the remainder by the construction and service sectors. Those activities have also been affected by the general slackness of the economy and by the rationalisation needed to offset cost and wage inflation. My hon. Friend knows well the many steps that we have taken to deal with these problems, which originated in the policies pursued in years past. Bradford has a sufficient diversity of industry to profit well from those measures.
  Before turning to the specific question of intermediate area status for Bradford, it may be as well to remind hon. Members that the legislation requires us to take into account in such decisions "all the circumstances, actual and expected". That means, of course, that unemployment levels are not the sole criteria, and that factors such as the industrial structure, to which I have referred, and the environment, to which my hon. Friend referred, must be fully considered. Indeed, these considerations must all play a part in our long-term regional strategy, not just in assisted area designation.
  My hon. Friend mentioned that Bradford, as a derelict land clearance area, is eligible for 75 per cent. grants towards clearing away derelict industrial buildings. Under the special environmental assistance arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment last month the local authorities in the area will now be able to put forward other schemes to improve the local environment. These measures should be particularly useful in enhancing Bradford's future prospects as

  1619
  a desirable place to live and work. Bradford Council has plans for large general improvement areas under the Housing Act, 1969, and is also attempting to provide 500 council houses each year to meet the needs of old people. I congratulate it on what it is doing. The reorganisation of local government, by making Bradford part of the West Yorkshire metropolitan area, with larger resources, should also help to deal with the area's infrastructure problems.
  There may have been some misunderstanding about industrial development certificates, not only in Bradford but in other parts of the country. Our regional strategy takes in basic infrastructure as well as national and local industrial situations. But the one strand which, in the past, has given places such as Bradford cause for concern has been the control of industrial development certificates. It is worth pointing out that, subject to the requirements of the development areas, I.D.C. control in the Bradford area has been liberally interpreted. I.D.C.s would normally be available for reasonable expansion by existing firms, for rehousing of firms already in the area, and for firms with strong ties to the area. Indeed, in 1970 and 1971 taken together, only one I.D.C. was refused in the Bradford-Shipley area—and that was rather a special case—as against 41 approved, and expected to give rise to 1,270 jobs, though I accept that a number will be for women. Nevertheless, that indicates that no company should fail to apply for an industrial development certificate in the area now.
  I have, for instance, very recently approved an I.D.C. for the British Radio Corporation at its Beckside works in Bradford, to be used for the production of colour television sets. That should give rise to 750 extra jobs, of which 550 will be for women. Certainly no company should feel deterred from applying in that area.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Would my hon. Friend like to emphasise that this expansion could not have taken place without the measures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced earlier this year? As a direct consequence, there has been the upturn in certain engineering undertakings, particularly in motor components, which has helped to diversify work in the city.
  Mr. Grant: I entirely agree. It was precisely to achieve those results that the Chancellor made those decisions. It is very encouraging to see those measures taking effect in the Bradford area.
  I turn now to the question of intermediate area status for Bradford, which was one of the main points that my hon. Friend mentioned. As I am sure my hon. Friend realises, the question of which areas should receive assistance in attracting industry, and what form that assistance should take, is one of the most complex problems that Government have to deal with. The first intermediate areas were created two years ago, following the very detailed report of Sir Joseph Hunt's Committee. The 200-odd pages of that report demonstrate the complexity of the subject, and it was of course the late Administration that turned down the Hunt Committee's recommendation that the whole of Yorkshire-Humberside, including Bradford, should be awarded intermediate area status. Their explanation for that decision was that such a major extension of the assisted areas would react on the more severe problem areas by spreading too thinly the resources available to create new employment.
  To be fair, there was and is some force in that argument, and we are taking it into account in our study of regional questions. But that is not to say that we are not also very much aware of the points made tonight by my hon. Friend, and points made at the meeting I had yesterday with Members from Yorkshire constituencies. I am not in a position to make any statement of our views today. What I do say is that in considering claims for assisted area status we have many complexities to deal with. Inevitably this takes time.
  As my hon. Friend recognised, Bradford is not the only area of the country pressing for one form or another of assisted status. We are carefully considering such claims in the context of our wide-ranging study of the regional problem. I need not reiterate the national economic measures that we have already taken to deal with the slackness of demand which my hon. Friend illustrated in his intervention. We have also made several major changes to improve the effectiveness of the regional policy measures that we inherited. At the same time, we have never claimed that the

  1621
  measures as they now stand were a complete answer. We have continued to look for better methods of tackling the problem and have been studying in depth the whole field of regional policy, not just assisted area boundaries.
  My hon. Friend's interesting suggestion tonight for special intermediate area status is certainly intended to provide greater flexibility and is worth looking at in that specific context. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has told the House that the results of our work and study of regional policy should be made known in a reasonable time. As I have said, I cannot anticipate the outcome today, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity to assure the inhabitants of the Bradford area that we are well informed on the situation there, largely through his assistance, and that this is being given full consideration in our work on a coherent national strategy.
  Perhaps I may now turn to another matter which I know is of concern to
  1622
  Bradford—the question of small firms, which are a vital feature of the area. We have welcomed the Bolton Committee's painstaking analysis of the problems of those firms. We agree with Bolton that subsidies are not appropriate, but we also recognise that some policies which were fully intended to be neutral in their effect on firms may not have been so in practice. We have already implemented several of the Bolton Committee's recommendations. A Minister has been appointed with special responsibility; we have created a small firms division; we have been raising the minimum level for the disclosure of turnover and directors' remuneration—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening 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 fourteen minutes to One o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Northern Region and Hartlepool (Environmental Improvements)
  Northern Region and Hartlepool (Environmental Improvements)
  National Parks
  National Parks
  Royal Arsenal, Woolwich
  Royal Arsenal, Woolwich
  Waste Paper Recovery
  Waste Paper Recovery
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Neasden Underpass (Cost)
  Neasden Underpass (Cost)
  Chalk
  Chalk
  Shopping Centres
  Shopping Centres
  River Dee (Crossing)
  River Dee (Crossing)
  Toxic Waste
  Toxic Waste
  Small Towns (Dock Trade)
  Small Towns (Dock Trade)
  Railwaymen (Pay Claim)
  Railwaymen (Pay Claim)
  New Town (Catthorpe)
  New Town (Catthorpe)
  Building Industry (Lost Production)
  Building Industry (Lost Production)
  Prices
  Prices
  Capital Projects (Exchequer Contribution)
  Capital Projects (Exchequer Contribution)
  Driving Licences (Grading)
  Driving Licences (Grading)
  Housing Finance Bill
  Housing Finance Bill
  Local Government Reform (Staffordshire)
  Local Government Reform (Staffordshire)
  Aberdeen Harbour
  Aberdeen Harbour
  Builders (Registration)
  Builders (Registration)
  Morecambe Bay (Barrage)
  Morecambe Bay (Barrage)
  Railways Board
  Railways Board
  South Tees Parkway
  South Tees Parkway
  East Midlands Economic Planning Council
  East Midlands Economic Planning Council
  Water Extraction (Totford)
  Water Extraction (Totford)
  Road Accidents (Foreign Visitors)
  Road Accidents (Foreign Visitors)
  Palace of Westminster (Terrace Gates)
  Palace of Westminster (Terrace Gates)
  Power-assisted Bicycles
  Power-assisted Bicycles
  House Building (Planning Applications)
  House Building (Planning Applications)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Unlicensed Lorries
  Unlicensed Lorries
  Slum Clearance (Derbyshire)
  Slum Clearance (Derbyshire)
  Commercial Vehicles (European Permits)
  Commercial Vehicles (European Permits)
  Refuse Disposal
  Refuse Disposal
  Caravan Sites (Gipsies)
  Caravan Sites (Gipsies)
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Balkholme-Kingston upon Hull (Road Construction)
  Balkholme-Kingston upon Hull (Road Construction)
  Huntingdon and Godmanchester Bypass
  Huntingdon and Godmanchester Bypass
  Ruxley Corner (Footbridge)
  Ruxley Corner (Footbridge)
  Public Amenities (Gardens and Playgrounds)
  Public Amenities (Gardens and Playgrounds)
  Pollution (Non-returnable Containers)
  Pollution (Non-returnable Containers)
  Bromley Common (Road Junction)
  Bromley Common (Road Junction)
  New Homes in the Cities
  New Homes in the Cities
  Southampton (Housing Subsidy)
  Southampton (Housing Subsidy)
  Protection of Tenants (Francis Committee)
  Protection of Tenants (Francis Committee)
  Housing (Cost Elements)
  Housing (Cost Elements)
  Mobile Cranes
  Mobile Cranes
  Vehicle Licensing
  Vehicle Licensing
  Listed Buildings (Demolition)
  Listed Buildings (Demolition)
  Arts and Humanities Centre, Peterlee (Grant)
  Arts and Humanities Centre, Peterlee (Grant)
  A5111–A6, Allestree (Public Inquiry)
  A5111–A6, Allestree (Public Inquiry)
  Rail Subsidies (Western Region)
  Rail Subsidies (Western Region)
  Office Space (Greater London)
  Office Space (Greater London)
  Noise
  Noise
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Transport Users' Consultative Committees
  Transport Users' Consultative Committees
  Local Government Bill
  Local Government Bill
  Land Requirements
  Land Requirements
  Water Supplies
  Water Supplies
  Railway Land, Walton
  Railway Land, Walton
  Road Safety (Local Authorities)
  Road Safety (Local Authorities)
  Meldon Reservoir
  Meldon Reservoir
  Rents
  Rents
  Building Materials
  Building Materials
  Palace Chambers, Bridge Street (Lift)
  Palace Chambers, Bridge Street (Lift)
  School Entrances (Road Safety)
  School Entrances (Road Safety)
  Transport and Land Use Studies
  Transport and Land Use Studies
  Regional Water Authorities
  Regional Water Authorities
  Land Reclamation (Nottinghamshire)
  Land Reclamation (Nottinghamshire)
  Council Houses
  Council Houses
  Housing (Fixed-Price Contracts)
  Housing (Fixed-Price Contracts)
  Housing Shortage
  Housing Shortage
  Farm Waste Disposal
  Farm Waste Disposal
  British Waterways
  British Waterways
SCOTLAND
  School Leaving Age
  School Leaving Age
  Economic Commission (S.T.U.C.)
  Economic Commission (S.T.U.C.)
  Rent Rebates
  Rent Rebates
  Wood of Auchleand, Newton Stewart
  Wood of Auchleand, Newton Stewart
  Seals
  Seals
  Local Authorities (Housing Debt)
  Local Authorities (Housing Debt)
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Invalid Vehicle Service
  Invalid Vehicle Service
  Motorway Expenditure
  Motorway Expenditure
  Schools (Promoted Posts)
  Schools (Promoted Posts)
  Regional and District Councils
  Regional and District Councils
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Telephones
  Telephones
  Giro
  Giro
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Television and Radio Reception (Wales)
  Television and Radio Reception (Wales)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Traffic Wardens
  Traffic Wardens
  Arsenal Football Ground (Accident)
  Arsenal Football Ground (Accident)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Regional Subsidies
  Regional Subsidies
  Machine Tool Industry (Grants)
  Machine Tool Industry (Grants)
  Steel Industry (Investment)
  Steel Industry (Investment)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Contracts (Scotland)
  Government Contracts (Scotland)
  New Companies
  New Companies
  Married Allowance
  Married Allowance
  Official Report (Cost)
  Official Report (Cost)
  Premium Savings Bonds
  Premium Savings Bonds
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  N.A.T.O. Bases (Gun Thefts)
  N.A.T.O. Bases (Gun Thefts)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Toxic Waste
  Toxic Waste
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Milk
  Milk
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Russell Report
  Russell Report
  Primary Schools (East Suffolk)
  Primary Schools (East Suffolk)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mental Patients (Repatriation)
  Mental Patients (Repatriation)
  Liverpool (Medical Services)
  Liverpool (Medical Services)
  Hospitals and Old People's Homes (East Suffolk)
  Hospitals and Old People's Homes (East Suffolk)
  Possum Typewriters
  Possum Typewriters
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles

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

FIREARMS CONTROL REVIEW
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the review of regulations for the control of all kinds of firearms mentioned in reply to a Question by the Earl of Cromartie on December 15, 1970; and when this review is likely to be completed.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, the review has made substantial progress, and I hope that it may be completed in the course of the summer. But this is a complex matter, and I am afraid it is not possible to give any firm undertaking.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his not very encouraging Answer, may I remind him that in April last he held out some hope that it might be finished "not before the end of the year", though one read that to mean perhaps by the end of the year. Therefore may I ask him whether, in view of the number of people who have been murdered with shot-guns while this leisurely review has been in progress, he will take steps to expedite it?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords I do not accept that this is a leisurely review. The Working Party, under the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, were appointed in December, 1970, 15 months ago. They have been at work for over a year, but this is a difficult and complex field. They have examined all the basic features of control, and more than 70
102
papers have been presented and considered. In the meantime we must keep in mind the fact that there are the existing controls on all forms of firearms, including shot-guns, and these controls are being enforced.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, with reference to the existing controls would the Minister urge chief constables to exercise the powers which I believe they have to enforce regulations about the safe keeping of shot-guns, so that the holder of a certificate cannot do what I understand is at present legal—that is, to have any number of shot-guns and leave them in his unlocked garden shed for any intruder to help himself?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, following a previous occasion on which this matter was raised in your Lordships' House, I believe by the noble Baroness, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary has taken up the point with chief officers of police. I can also tell the noble Baroness that after the Question which she tabled concerning the safe keeping of firearms in rifle clubs on school premises my right honourable friend circularised chief officers of police, drawing that matter to their attention as well. Therefore it should not be thought that while the Working Party are carrying out their review no further action is being taken. If and when action is needed it will be taken.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I am grateful for the answer about schools, but I must point out that in my own neighbourhood nothing further has happened.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that criminals do not as a rule apply for firearms certificates of any kind?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should just like to deal with that point as it is an important one. The majority of weapons used in crime are not certificated and never have been, but we believe from the statistics which are available that none the less there is a significant number of firearms used in crime which have at one time been covered by certificates. Therefore this sort of inquiry is useful.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that one of the reasons why many scores of thousands of shot-guns are possessed is so that they may be used for grouse and pheasant shooting; and would it not help to solve this problem if those sports were made illegal?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, that is going wider than the Question on the Order Paper.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how many meetings have taken place in connection with this Working Party; what was the date of their last meeting, and what is the number of documents that they have already received? Can the noble Lord also say how many of these have yet been analysed, and when does he hope that we may expect the report? Can the noble Lord be more definite in his reply, as this matter is so important?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, may I refer the noble Lord back to my initial Answer? I think he will find there some of the information which he is seeking. I gave a fairly clear indication that we hope that the review may be completed in the course of this summer. As I understand it, the majority, if not all, of the papers I referred to have now been considered; and a majority, if not all, of the evidence by interested parties has been given, although there are some further consultations still to take place. Therefore it is the process of considering the evidence which has been placed before the Working Party that remains to be completed.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, will the noble Lord now answer the question which was put to him by my noble friend: how many times has this Committee met, and when was the last occasion?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should have to ask for notice of that question. As I understand the position, this is quite a big group. There have been certain meetings of the full Working Party, and there have been other meetings of sub-groups, taking evidence and so on. If I may, I should like to get some statistics and write to the noble Lord.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does the noble Lord intend to convey to
104
the House that because the Committee have not found a method of dealing with the firearms of the existence of which they are unaware, therefore they are not prepared to deal with the existence of those firearms of which they are aware?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I find it impossible to follow that question.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, Ministers, no doubt coping manfully with questions, frequently in the most helpful way offer to write to noble Lords. I appreciate that some Ministers are not speaking for their Departments and it is not easy for them to deal with some questions. But it is rather unsatisfactory just to push the whole thing off with the promise of a letter. I wonder whether the noble Earl the Leader of the House would consider that in such matters Ministers might arrange for a Question for Written Answer to be put down, so that the Answer appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT and can then be seen by other noble Lords.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, in view of the fact that we know from experience that in special cases committees can work with speed, could the present firearms position be regarded as a special case?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, we should keep this matter in perspective. The Working Party have been at work for little more than a year. This is the first systematic review of firearms legislation for 36 years. It is an important matter. There are existing controls on firearms, and what has to be considered is whether or not these should be changed. I have taken the precaution of looking up the Inquiries conducted by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, for my Department in the past. The review on Cannabis took 18 months, and the one on Non-Custodial alternatives to Imprisonment somewhat more than three years.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that the deaths from Cannabis during our inquiry were nil? And can he say how many people have been murdered with shot-guns during the course of this investigation?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should not care to speculate whether

105
drugs abuse or firearms control is the more urgent matter. Both of them are extremely important and both require systematic and careful thought. That is what this subject is getting.

GIBRALTAR AIR SERVICES
2.45 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: 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, bearing in mind the existing air services between London and Gilbraltar; Madrid and Gibraltar; Tangier and Gibraltar; Marrakesh and Gibraltar, (a) whether they have any proposals for further air services to and from Gibraltar; and (b) what is the present position regarding the proposed Gibraltar Airways (Gibair) service between Gibraltar and Lisbon.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, any proposals for further air services at Gibraltar would be a matter for the commercial judgment of airlines in the first place. But Her Majesty's Government would be glad to see additional services by duly licensed British operators or by foreign airlines in the terms of the United Kingdom's bilateral air services agreements. As regards the proposed service between Gibraltar and Lisbon by Gibraltar Airways, the approval of the Portuguese authorities is required and this has not yet been forthcoming.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that I raised this matter on March 26, 1970, on April 6, 1971, and again to-day? Would he not agree that an extension of a B.E.A. United Kingdom to Portugal service from Lisbon or Faro to Gibraltar would be a logical development of air services and would also assist the economy of Gibraltar?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that the two parts of my Answer really covered that point. If B.E.A. were to apply for such a service no doubt it would be considered, but no application has been received for an extension of a London/Lisbon service to Gibraltar.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it may be that there has been no application from B.E.A., but can the noble Lord say whether the Government of Gibraltar have made representations to Her Majesty's Government about the inadequacy of services into Gibraltar, particularly bearing in mind the difficulties of Gibraltar and their great need for and dependence on tourism?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not consider that there is any shortage of services into Gibraltar at the present time, in relation to the traffic offered. I am not in a position to say whether the Gibraltar Government have been pursuing this matter recently, but I will certainly make enquiries.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, in regard to the latter part of my noble friend's Answer to my original Question concerning the various services, and while welcoming very much Dr. Patricio's visit here thus cementing the historic and present close links between Portugal and this country, may I ask my noble friend whether in the context of the political and economic discussions which have taken place with Dr. Patricio and his colleagues the question of air communications was raised at any of the meetings in London?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I understand that Dr. Patricio is still here. I am not in a position to commit my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary as to what he discusses or declines to discuss with Dr. Patricio.

SOUTH AFRICA: DEPORTATION OF BISHOP WINTER
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations have been made to the South African Government regarding the deportation of the Bishop of Damaraland; and whether they will seek to raise this matter at the United Nations as a breach of the terms of the mandate of South West Africa.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, as was stated in a Written Reply in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Her Majesty's Government are examining the facts of the case before they decide whether formal representations to the South African authorities would be justified. In this regard, we are letting Bishop Winter know that a Minister will be glad to see him when he arrives in the United Kingdom. Her Majesty's Government have no plans to raise the matter at the United Nations.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that I have seen the Answer that was given in another place to my honourable friend Mr. David Steel, and I am at a loss to understand why the Foreign Secretary finds it so difficult to get at the facts when it is well known that the Government of the Republic of South Africa on a Friday afternoon specially amended the Removal of Undesirables Act 1920 in order to make it apply to the Bishop, published the notices in the Gazette on the following morning and served the deportation notices on the Bishop, his secretary and a worker priest on Saturday at lunchtime on the eve of the visit of Dr. Kurt Waldheim? In view of the fact that these matters are generally known, why does the Foreign Secretary have to delay before making any representations to the Republic in the case of a British citizen, and why has he decided not to make any similar representations to the United Nations?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the documents to which the noble Lord refers are some of the documents which Her Majesty's Government are trying to obtain sight of—there are other documents, notably the text of the affidavits which were submitted by Bishop Winter and his colleagues to the court, and also the judgment of the Supreme Court refusing the Bishop's application for a stay. We consider it absolutely essential that we should have sight of these documents before we can decide to make a formal representation to the South African Government. In addition,
108
as I have said in my Answer, we are very much hoping that Bishop Winter will himself be able to come and see us, and explain the facts of the case from his point of view.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, if I may pursue this matter, the noble Marquess is no doubt aware that the Bishop is due to arrive in this country tomorrow. These events happened as long ago as February 25. Surely he would have been able to obtain the additional documents to which he refers before the Bishop arrives, so that representations could be made to the South African Government for a stay of implementation of the deportation order?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot add to what I have said. We are hoping to get these documents, and we are pressing the authorities in South Africa to allow us to see them.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the fact that the United Nations have declared that the administration of South-West Africa by the Republican Government is now illegal, is it not desirable that this matter should be raised at the United Nations, particularly in view of the fact that the Bishop was able to see the General Secretary of the United Nations in Cape Town yesterday?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, of course, as the noble Lord will be aware, the British Government did not accept the ruling of the International Court in this regard concerning South-West Africa. For that reason, we think that this is a matter which should be pursued bilaterally between ourselves and the South African Government. I do not know what passed between the Bishop and the Secretary General, but I have no doubt that the matter was discussed fairly rigorously.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, does that mean that Her Majesty's Government regard a decision by the United Nations as less operative than their own view about the judgment at The Hague?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: No, my Lords; I was merely stating the facts of the case as Her Majesty's Government see them.

RHODESIA: UNITED NATIONS AND SANCTIONS
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why their representative abstained from voting in the United Nations Security Council for the retention of sanctions against the illegal régime in Rhodesia.]
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the United Kingdom abstained because we consider United Nations resolutions on Rhodesia to be unnecessary and unhelpful pending the publication of the report of the Pearce Commission.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the case that the United Nations are involved in mandatory sanctions upon the illegal Government in Southern Rhodesia, and in view of the fact that it is now clear that an overwhelming majority of the African population—the majority in Rhodesia—are rejecting the settlement, is it not unfortunate that the impression should be given that the British Government are not clear about the maintenance of sanctions?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not think that is so. This resolution, as it appeared at the Council, imposed no new directives on the United Nations or on the members of the United Nations regarding sanctions, and it was for this reason that we abstained from voting on it.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that this consistent hanging back and lack of enthusiasm for their own policy of implementing sanctions is extremely destructive to those people who work for the United Nations and for the rule of international law?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not think I would accept that. Our delegate at the United Nations made it perfectly plain why we abstained. I have tried to make it plain on this occasion, and I hope the House will accept that.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that we long for some positive action on the part of Her Majesty's Government instead of always this equivocation when it comes to implementing their own views?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that positive action on behalf of Her Majesty's Government must surely await the results of the Pearce Commission.

TEACHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING
2.55 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY rose to call attention to the Report Teacher Education and Training; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, my colleagues and I have chosen to lay this subject before your Lordships' House this afternoon as a contribution to the debate which will inevitably, and rightly, take place as a result of the publication of this Report. I have been in correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who has courteously explained to me that the Government would have preferred that this debate should have taken place later, when they had had more time to consider a constructive approach of their own. But I personally am glad that it is taking place when it is, because your Lordships now have a chance to make points arising from this Report before the Government have made up their minds; and we all know that this is a much easier time to influence a Government than when they have been in any way publicly committed. Therefore I am not addressing any of my questions to-day to the Government; I am merely hoping that your Lordships will put to the Government the points which arise in your minds as a result of reading this Report, so that the Government may be fully informed by the wealth of expertise in these matters which resides in your Lordships' House.
The first thing that must be said, and must never be forgotten even if, during the course of this debate, there are quite a lot of criticisms—and of any Report, there are many criticisms—is that this is an incredibly fine piece of work. We are immensely indebted to the noble Lord,

111
Lord James of Rusholme, and his colleagues for what they have achieved. To present such a detailed and imaginative blueprint for the future of teacher training in such a short time is in itself a tour de force. When you add to this that it is a pleasure to read, it is a very rare product indeed. When you think that it is unanimous, words begin to fail.
It is a Report of immense significance. If it were merely about the training of teachers it would be of maximum importance in its own right, but it is more than that; it is probably the first major document in the beginning of a very wide-ranging debate about the structure of higher and further education in this country. Although this was not within the terms of reference of the Committee, neither they nor we can avoid it. It is on the effects of the recommendations of the James Report on Higher Education rather than on their effects on teacher training, as such, that most of the controversy will rest, which in itself is a tribute to how thoroughly they have done their work on teacher training.
Beginning at the end of the training cycles, as the Report rightly and logically does, we start with the recommendations for in-service training, although the Report makes the point, in passing, that for a large, complex field this is a misleading term. For the Report, so far as it goes on this particular subject, there can be nothing but praise and indeed much praise has been heaped upon it. It is not just a question of giving teachers the opportunity to refresh their knowledge. There is a real, imaginative approach here towards flexibility within the profession and in teaching methods. Indeed, I see flexibility as one of the major keynotes of this Report.
Although one or two of the criticisms that I may make stem from a wonder as to whether flexibility has been taken far enough, it is obvious that it was in the minds of the Chairman and his colleagues all the time. In cycle three, in-service training, we are dealing with flexibility about teachers who want to change the subjects they are teaching; flexibility about methods and types of teaching; flexibility between forms of school and further education; flexibility about entry into the profession and, particularly, about the re-entry of people who have
112
been out of it, especially married women; flexibility in education, so that at any time in his or her career every teacher can increase, deepen and widen his or her own education. In passing—and I am afraid that this may have to be a rather "bitty" speech, because there are so many small points that one wants to take up and comment on or question—I should particularly like to commend the paragraph dealing with the adequate and systematic preparation for the posts of heads of departments, deputy heads, deputy principals, heads or principals in schools and colleges. Proper training for the demanding jobs in education, and particularly for the administrative jobs, is absolutely essential.
If I have a criticism of these recommendations in the third cycle, it is to wonder whether a minimum of one term in-training in every seven years should have been mentioned even as a preliminary figure. One term in five years, which is what the Committee really want to see, and they say so, appears to be a bare minimum. Even if the Government respond to these suggestions about the third cycle as quickly as the Committee hope, the pressures on teacher-supply are, as we know, to a certain extent easing and by the end of the first five years—which is the end of the first five years in which every teacher should have had a single term —I should have thought we would be at the point where we could implement that recommendation and not bother with the rather lower aim of one term in seven years. As we all know, if one starts with a rather inadequate goal it is not unknown that one sometimes gets stuck with it, instead of moving on to a higher goal. We shall come to an interesting example of that later on.
I also raise the question, without urging the point, whether in-service training should not be made compulsory. The Report states:
"It would be undesirable, at least initially, to make inservice education and training compulsory."
I am interested in that qualification, at least initially, and wonder whether the Committee thought that in the end it might be important. I see many reasons for not making it compulsory, the main one of which is that, as a Liberal, I do not think more things should be made

113
compulsory than have to be. But it has been pointed out to me by one of my colleagues on the Liberal Education Panel that this means that those teachers who most need in-service training are the ones who will not get it. The Committee recognised the necessity of in-service training for further education teachers, and that, too, must of course be welcomed. Although it was outside the terms of reference of the Committee, let us hope that that will lead people to think more about the need of in-service training for higher education teachers.
The Open University is mentioned as a possible important tool in the third cycle. I think it could certainly form an extremely important aspect of this part of education. Another might be if real consideration was given, as we have sometimes urged, to the development of the fourth television channel as a completely educational channel. I see this Report as marking a considerable advance in the whole educational policy and theory in this country, and I think we are going to need a television channel which is largely devoted to education. In finishing with the third cycle, I would urge the main point that I wish to put to the Government to-day: that, certainly for our part, we join with the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, in the strong emphasis which he and his colleagues have put on implementing these recommendations as soon as possible and on devoting sufficient resources to them.
It is in the second cycle that we reach the first main problems. It is one of the objects of the Committee and of the Report to do away with the formal distinctions between the two main existing types of training teachers: three years of concurrent training for non-graduates and one year of consecutive training for graduates. All the way through the Report it is the aim of the noble Lord, Lord James, and his colleagues to break down these divisions. The question which I think we must ask is whether they have succeeded or whether, in fact, they have merely replaced one kind of distinction with another. A small point which arises in consideration Of the second cycle is to be especially commended. More and more educationists, as well as others, are seeing the value of at least a year being taken off at one stage of people's education if they
114
are taking education right through to a high standard. This is particularly so if they are going back to teaching.
People who go from school to a college of education or university and straight back to school again probably need a bit of a break from the academic cycle. It is not particularly healthy. Possibly the complaints which we have recently had from leading industrialists about the quality of graduates have more to do with maturity and experience than with academic qualifications, so perhaps a break here is important. Therefore it is particularly to be welcomed that the noble Lord, Lord James, and his colleagues have said that they would:
"… see advantages in its becoming a known practice of regional bodies to advise professional institutions to give preference, other claims being equal, to those who have not proceeded straight from school to higher education or indeed from the first to the second cycle."
That is a recommendation which should be considered in many other fields, way outside teacher training.
I return to the question of divisions within the teaching profession. The fact is that there is still going to be a division between those who have taken an academic degree and those who have taken a professional degree. It may be that one of the ways of getting over this division is that it should be blurred by a multitude of titles; and the co-existence of a B.A.(Ed.) and an M.A.(Ed.), with a B.Ed. and a B.A. and an M.A., may be one way of so baffling people that the division becomes lost. I think there is something to be said for this, although my first reaction is that something simpler might be necessary and that possibly the professional qualifications should become a B.Ed., with the present B.Ed. being adapted to become an M.Ed.
Many of my colleagues on the Liberal Education Panel, and some with a very great deal of experience not only of schools but of the whole educational system, have commented on whether the second year of cycle two is very practicable in a lot of schools. This is a question on which the Department of Education and Science will be spending a lot of time, and I bow to their superior wisdom for they have practical experience and I do not. But I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord James, and his colleagues were absolutely right to say what

115
they thought ought to happen, and that it is now up to us and to the D.E.S., and up to the teachers and the schools, to see that what ought to happen does happen and that the resources are found to meet the needs.
As I have already said, I am impressed by the way the Committee have left loopholes all the way through the Report. But I wish they had been slightly more flexible about cycle two. Concurrent education—the learning of a subject with learning about how to teach that subject—has a real value which the Committee hardly touch upon, and I should have thought there was still room for some teacher training which comprised three years of concurrent training plus the second year of cycle two. I think that this should be very much limited, so that no one should have to go in for it who is not quite clear from the beginning that he is going to make teaching his career. As we all know, one of the troubles at the moment is that teacher training is an alternative form of higher education, and in this concurrent training many people learn how to teach who really do not particularly want to do so. The great virtue of the Dip.H.E. is that it will stop the original entry into colleges of education from being a monotechnic qualification. I am sure this is important. I do not want to underestimate the importance of the two-year Dip.H.E., but I just wonder whether there is not room for some concurrent training, particularly possibly for the mature student who has made up his mind and knows exactly what he wants to do.
I now come to the first cycle, and here I should like warmly to welcome the new Dip.H.E., but only with certain provisos—the same provisos as I have about the organisation of teacher training as outlined in Chapter 5. If the effect of all this is going to be to provide a third sector of higher education separate from the other two and as firmly divided as they are, I do not want it. If the universities are not going to accept the Dip.H.E. as a credit towards their degree courses, if indeed they are not going to regard it as part of their business, I do not want it. But if, on the other hand, as is envisaged particularly in the Note of Extension (which is extremely important, and to which I shall refer again later), the
116
Dip.H.E. is going to become the instrument of flexibility in the whole realm of further and higher education, making it much easier for people to move from one sector to another, and indeed blurring the differences between the sectors, then I think it is not only important for teacher training but a most valuable and important weapon in the whole field of education.
Lastly, I come to the organisation. The Committee, again, have done a really thorough job on their plan. One can only wonder at the immense amount of detailed working out of the plan that they have done. But it is here that I do not think that their plan is good enough, and it is here that my one major criticism would rest. My colleagues and I do not like the binary system of higher education. We certainly do not want a third sector. To my mind, almost the most fascinating piece of the whole Report is the note on the situation in Wales. I hope some of your Lordships have noted this, and, if not, may do so in the course of the debate, because there a situation exists where the university, through its special position in history, will take the Dip.H.E. and the colleges of education under its wing, where it can validate their degrees and brood over the whole complex of higher and further education. That is what I should like to see in England, and that is what I think we could see if we had what some of us want; that is, a provincial federation of higher and further education—a federation which would include universities, polytechnics, colleges of further education, colleges of education and, indeed, all education coming under the D.E.S. beyond school-leaving age. I grant that it is common knowledge that many universities have not really done their duty by the colleges of education under the present system; but some have, and where this has happened there appears to be no doubt in anybody's mind that it was worth while. I doubt very much whether the Dip.H.E. will be validated by universities unless they feel that they have a rather bigger stake in it than they will in the regional councils for colleges and departments of education proposed by the Report.
Here, in talking about provincial federations, I am of course on tricky ground because what I am suggesting

117
could not possibly have been recommended by the James Committee, since it went far beyond their terms of reference. But, nevertheless, I think it is an answer. The universities have a part to play as the guardians of academic standards. That may sound dangerously elitist to one or two, but I think it is the right approach. Universities have something to offer to education of enormous and lasting importance. This must not be destroyed, either by doing away with the universities in their present form or by allowing them, or indeed by compelling them, to retreat into ivory towers. An on-going responsibility for all education is one of the best ways in which universities can be outward-looking and outward-reaching.
I should like at this point, just before I close, to quote to your Lordships the conclusions of the McNair Report of 1944 on this subject. Paragraph 179 of that Report reads:
"We make this proposal for a major constitutional change at a time when fundamental reforms are being made in our educational system, when we are within sight of full-time education for every boy and girl up to 16 years of age, with compulsory part-time education up to 18"—
that was 26 years ago, and your Lordships will note what I was saying before about how, if you start off with lower aims, you may get stuck with them for rather too long—
"and when it is necessary to attract to the profession of teaching men and women of high quality and potentialities. We believe that in years to come it will be considered disastrous if the national system for the training of teachers is found to be divorced from the work of the universities or even to be running parallel with it. We are not looking a few years but twenty-five years ahead, and such an opportunity for fundamental reform as now presents itself may not recur within that period".
The fact that that reform may have been rather botched does not mean that those words are not true, and it is now, 25 years later, that we have to consider whether they are true or not.
My Lords, there are many other things I could say. My noble friend Lady Seear will be talking about qualifications for entry to the first cycle, and other matters. I hope I have not seemed to your Lordships to be too critical of the Report because I have tried not to be. The Committee were unanimous. What might have been in less skilful hands a Minority Re-
118
port is now justifiably termed a Note of Extension. My criticisms are really also notes of extension. I welcome this Report. I hope that, although the Government cannot comment on it at this moment, they will accept the tone of urgency put forward by the noble Lord, Lord James, and his colleagues for cycle three, and realise that they must devote very real resources, not just a reorganisation of the present situation. The rest of the Report is important and good, but I go further: I go with the Note of Extension. I want to see this organisation tied up with higher education. I think that not the least important parts of the Report are the Notes of Extension and the paragraph on Wales, and I commend to your Lordships a study of these particular sections.
It is a great honour and pleasure for me to have been allowed to introduce this subject into your Lordships' House, and I should like to express, I know on behalf of all your Lordships, our thanks and pleasure that the noble Lord, Lord James, is going to speak this afternoon. I am also pleased that, for once, we appear to have got equality of the sexes, and have about an equal number of women and men speaking. I am also particularly pleased that the Bishop of London has been able to attend to add his wisdom. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.19 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for his splendid introduction to this debate on the Report, and if I do not entirely follow him in every respect I am sure he will not by this time be surprised. Indeed, with three distinguished ex-Ministers taking part in the debate, a number of university professors and the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, himself, my contribution can be brief. I notice that the Minister will not be replying until the end, and I take this as a hopeful sign that the mind of the Government is still open on the question of the Report—because my approach may well be a little different from that of some of my noble friends. I speak to-day as an ex-teacher and as one who maintains close contact with the profession and with students. I should like to try to convey to your Lordships some of their views. These are the people

119
who are described in Antony Sampson's Anatomy of Britain as being in a difficult situation:
"underpaid, taken for granted, yet required to be the main agents of the great character change of the British people."
If "there is nothing constant but change", as we are constantly told, we certainly have plenty of changes in the methods of handling State education. One Report follows another, all from Committees headed by distinguished chairmen; each Minister in this Department likes to make his or her mark by the introduction of some rearrangement or change of the system. An old friend of mine, a headmaster in an East End school, once said to me that all these changes in education are part of a deep-rooted plot to keep the working classes illiterate. Certainly no other profession is subjected to so many opinions and outside advice on how to carry out its job. How many Commissions or Reports have had to deal with doctors or with barristers, with architects or with accountants, and so on? I suggest that there have been not half the number of those which have dealt with the education profession. How much change has taken place in the older universities? How much change has taken place in the public schools, or in the medical schools, or (dare I mention it?) in the Inns of Court? The noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, may say that this is an argument which shows that we are concerned about education. But we must not fall into the trap of saying that all change is good and that all suggestions for change must automatically be accepted. At the end of this debate some of the more Left-Wing publications will undoubtedly declare that I am the most reactionary of the Members on this side of the House.
My Lords, the Report, in its Introduction, says:
"This report describes the reform in the education and training of teachers which we wish to recommend. Its argument for fundamental change is not based upon any false assumption that the present system has, in some total sense, failed or is in imminent danger of doing so. On the contrary, the history of the colleges of education, whether L.F.A. or voluntary, and of the departments of education, in the past 20 years of expansion and adaptation and the widely acknowledged achievements of the schools into which young teachers have taken their knowledge and skills demonstrate how much has already been achieved. Nevertheless,
120
there is abundant evidence that the system is no longer adequate to its purposes."
We have not had the opportunity of examining the evidence—which, incidentally, does not appear to be embodied in the Report. I noticed that the Committee membership included one woman (we have come to expect the "statutory woman") with seven males, although in the colleges of education the number of women in training is well over double that of men. One other interesting figure is that full-time undergraduate students form the lowest percentage of those taking education as principal fields of study. This is very relevant.
As we have heard from the admirable introduction of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, the Report proposes three cycles of education in the training of teachers. I was interested to note that the noble Lord, Lord James, used the word "cycles". In my lifetime I had watched cycles of almost everything—even in the feeding of babies. I had my babies at a time when they were removed from the mother and returned at four-hourly intervals. The next cycle was of three-hourly intervals. In the next cycle the babies were returned to mother much more frequently; and now we have reached the cycle where they are fed "on demand" which is rather like following the advice of the Edwardian grandmothers. So the word "cycle" seems to be a suitable one. Using the words of the Report, the three cycles in the training and education of teachers are: one, personal higher education; two, pre-service training; and, three. in-service training. It is significant, particularly apropos the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that of the first cycle, the Report says:
"For some teachers university or C.N.A.A. degrees or certain specialist qualifications would be suitable first cycle awards but for others in both primary and secondary schools a more broadly based higher education is thought to be more helpful."
My Lords, this is the kind of suggestion that has been fought off for years: the curious idea that to teach infants it is not necessary to be so highly educated as it is to teach adolescents. But the "educated person", in itself, is a very desirable thing. I should like to see a situation where we have educated dustmen in the sense that they, too, had attended university having wished to do

121
so. Surely professional qualifications are something that comes after the opportunity of university experience. This first cycle appears to be taken in a liberal arts college—a new name—and it would carry a new award, the Diploma of Higher Education. This would have no honours. The point made here is that students would not have to make up their minds so early and—this is a phrase used in the Report— "feel trapped intoteaching". But I am not quite certain which profession would be interested in a student who emerged with this Dip. H.E. after two years' training. The first cycle is put forward as an opportunity for non-teachers to study with teachers; but in the present system of colleges of education, students follow different vocational subjects and come together for instruction in professional techniques. This would not be very greatly different. I ask this question. Do we really need the introduction of a new degree? I am saddened by the thought that we always feel that if we muddle things enough we shall perhaps achieve something that everybody can enter. I believe that people of some nations even have the qualification, "B.A.(Failed)". Perhaps we might even reach that!
My Lords, in the second cycle, the teacher will study teaching. Then he or she enters a school as a licensed teacher. I have no doubt that another stratum will appear if we have licensed teachers. Those in it probably will be known as "non-licensed" teachers. I remember that we used to have certificated and uncertificated teachers, supplementaries and pupil teachers. The supplementaries, I recall, were described as having to be "over 21, British"—and, presumably, sound in mind and body. At the end of the fourth year the qualified-teacher status would come, the Report suggests, with the award of the B.A. (Ed.) degree. The suggested change, that of licensed teachers entering schools, is said to be as a result of the criticism of the present probationary year. But I have been reading, as many noble Lords may have read, the results of the surveys carried out among probationaries. From the Report, I see:
"What seems to be peculiar to the beginning teacher is that he has to cope with so many problems simultaneously and that particularly in the classrooms situation, he has to do this, for the most part, by himself."
122
How different will the licensed teacher be? He will still have two years' general education, still only one year of professional education and, in the fourth year, he will surely be in a situation comparable to that of the present probationary teacher.
Industry has a name for training: "Sit next to Nellie", and in the end one can only complete one's learning on the job. What we really need is to have closer contact with the colleges of education and with the advisers at L.E.A. so that they will be able to talk to probationary teachers and come back to the colleges and find out what is going wrong so that there is advice and help at this level. Despite current trends of thought, I still believe that all jobs have special techniques which can be handed on. Your Lordships will not be surprised to know that I include in these simple techniques things like, "You do not turn your back on the class when you are writing on the blackboard". This does not come to you instinctively. You may learn it the hard way or you may have it handed on to you from the college. As the noble Lord, Lord James, is sitting here, I feel that I must fall back on the technique used in a certain television programme where they say, "We have bad news and good news". Having given him the bad news, perhaps I may now give him the good news. When I come to the third cycle mentioned in the Report, of course all educationists will agree with the idea of in-service training and education; but along with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I suppose the proposals are intended only as a starter because one school term in every seven years of service is not really going to he of much use as recreation.
To operate this cycle of course means that more teachers would be needed, as a substantial term could not be granted if the teacher could not be spared. The figure estimated as required to reduce the number of children in primary school classes from 40 to 30 is still very large, so I am sure the writers of the Report must have recognised that they will need more teachers if they are in fact to operate what I would call the "sabbatical term". Perhaps it is contained in the words in the Report:
"the ratio of supply which would be regulated at the point of entry to the second

123
cycle could be sensitively adjusted to the schools needs."
My Lords, I think I have said enough to show that I do not like the suggestion of differing levels of teachers. At present we have two—the graduate and the nongraduate—and despite all that has been said, this seems to work quite well. The figures just issued by the Department of Education and Science show that the proportion of teachers holding degrees is increasing and that the proportion of college student entrants having G.C.E. "A" levels is also rising very substantially. The changes in the colleges of education should, in my humble judgment, be to integrate them much more closely with the universities, as suggested originally in the Robbins Report, for they are part of higher education and no separate regional or national councils or colleges of liberal arts can bestow the same status as an acceptance within the total structure.
My Lords, in one of her recent speeches the Minister said:
"We must avoid becoming pre-occupied with systems and structures to the detriment of the actual content of education. Schools are for children and what goes on in them is what matters. The role of a good system is to see that schools are built, equipped and staffed so that the pupils have access to specialised knowledge, to liberal-minded teaching and to general education of high quality."
I feel that having said that the Minister will follow out her own words, and I hope that she will listen to those who teach and who love the children they teach.
3.34 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, all who are interested in education must welcome an opportunity to discuss this very important Report on the education and training of teachers and must therefore very much welcome the opportunity presented by Lord Beaumont of Whitley to-day. This is a subject which is absolutely fundamental to the quality of the education that our children receive. I think it is still quite soon after the publication of the Report to give all one's most considered views because there has not been time to consult all the people whom one might have wished to consult, and so to-day the thoughts that one has must necessarily be first thoughts.
124
My Lords, I think, however, that all educational opinion is united in welcoming the imaginative and far-reaching proposals contained in the third cycle of training—that is, the proposal that one term in every seven years' teaching should be what I would call a sabbatical term's leave, The case is most cogently argued. Like all other professions to-day, teaching practices are changing very rapidly and teachers need retraining and the opportunity to re-think their work and their purpose in life. Not only are there all the new aspects of curriculum, such as Nuffield science; team teaching; the introduction of French in primary schools; teachers who suddenly have to teach a mixed ability class where before they taught only a class that was either streamed or set; those who must teach pupils who will be staying on over the age of 15 for the first time and may not be at all willing pupils at the end of this time; but I would add also, the whole world of educational technology. Sometimes when I have been into a language laboratory or a room of visual aids I feel that everybody needs to be a mechanic as well as a teacher.
I would add yet one other reason for sabbatical leave. Most of us in education know the teacher who has been in the same school for 20 years—not that splendid father-figure "Mr. Chips" but the man or woman who is still grinding away at the same old subject in the same old way. He will not leave the school and cannot be asked to do so. But he could go on a course or have a term's leave and have a look at the outside world and perhaps have wider horizons opened up to him with possibly the opportunity to move sideways, if not upwards, in the profession. Finally, there is the opportunity for teachers to sit back and consider their teaching methods, because in the rush and bustle of school life it is all too easy to see the wood and not the trees.
But, having said that, I think it is going to be a very expensive project and to many people in local authorities it appears to be a little unfortunate that very little has been said about costs except in two paragraphs. It may be thought that in an education debate it is inappropriate to mention the question of money at all, but local education authorities will want to know how they are expected to meet this expensive project.

125
It is generally reckoned that teachers' salaries are about 60 per cent. of an education committee budget and that the education committee is the biggest spender of all local authority committees. The cost of sending a teacher on a course, certainly a residential course, would be quite considerable. The cost of sending a teacher to a course at a local teachers' centre too would have to be considered, quite apart from the cost of replacing the teacher on leave, and of course the administrative costs. And the costs of replacing the teacher on leave might well fall on authorities possibly least able to bear them, because if one is fortunate enough to be an authority which has and can get a plentiful supply of teachers, as my own is, where all our schools are fully staffed and where perhaps the absence for one term could be spread over in other schools where this is not the case it would be very difficult to release one permanent member of the staff without finding a satisfactory replacement.
It has been suggested to me that the cost should be pooled. But there are two reservations that I have about that. It does not help local education authorities to pool the cost unless there is some adjustment on the rate support grant. Furthermore, pooling itself is an expensive way of administering a service, as those of us who have had experience of the advanced further education pool know to our cost. It means that no individual authority has sole responsibility for the cost or for the services provided. So that I think it would be helpful to have something said about the cost of this proposal in the third cycle.
I turn now to the first and second cycles. I have heard so many completely contradictory opinions on both of these that I feel it is only fair to set out what seem to me to be the arguments in favour of them and some of the difficulties that I foresee. As to the proposal for the Diploma of Higher Education, there seem to be three very good arguments in favour of it. The first is that it provides a general course of further education for those leaving school who want more education but who are not going to a university. As someone said to me, can you not see the sort of person who before the war might well have gone to "Oxbridge", not because he was a scholar but because his parents thought
126
he could get the benefits that a university has to offer. It is a form of education somewhat similar to that in many liberal arts colleges in America, where many people who wish for further education cannot really be considered as "Oxbridge" scholars. It provides, secondly, an opportunity for mixing those intending to be teachers with other people, unlike the colleges of education where everyone is an intended teacher. I know the question is asked, "Who else would take the Diploma of Higher Education?", but possibly there would be people interested in social work; possibly people interested in administration, either in local government or the Civil Service; possibly people interested in going into, say, library work, or museums. It is not even impossible that they would be going into hospital work of one sort or another. Therefore one sees that there is this educational advantage of mix.
Thirdly, it means that, unlike under the present system, those taking the Diploma of Higher Education are not committed to teaching at the age of 18. I think there are some people, particularly girls, who go to colleges of education because there is no alternative. The moment they leave school they go into a college of education where they are trapped into teaching, and they do not have this longer time in which to make up their minds. Therefore I think there are a great many educational arguments for having an extra two years to consider all these points. The great criticism is the one which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, about the future relationship with the universities. At present the system of training teachers is in one of two ways: either three years and a university degree plus the Diploma of Education, or three years at a college of education, which completes it, or plus a Bachelor of Education degree which could be taken alternatively at university or a college of education. In either case, the relationship between the universities and the colleges of education is fairly close and there is quite a bit of cross movement between the universities and the colleges.
My Lords, if you look at this point of trying to improve the quality, particularly of the primary school teacher, you will see that there is a great deal to be said for having this cross-movement all the

127
time, so that those who have gone straight into a college of education meet university graduates, and vice versa, because the latter, too, have a great deal to learn from the others. As I understand the proposals, the present position would be either three years at a university plus the second cycle—one year professional training and one year teaching—or two years for the Diploma of Higher Education plus the second cycle. Whether or not we shall keep this same close relationship with the universities, which I feel to be of value, depends very much on the attitude that the universities will take to the Dip.H.E. Will they validate it? Will they use it as a part of a university degree? How employers will look at it is another point. But certainly it would be a pity if, in looking at a new, interesting and imaginative idea, we lost the value of what we have at present; and I think there is something to be said for looking rather closely at this proposal.
The dilemma is, in a way, well reflected when one examines the part of the Report which discusses the qualifications necessary for entry into the Dip.H.E. Many people to-day are worried at the very low qualifications with which it is possible to enter a college of education. One can do so with perhaps five or six O-levels and one of them need not be mathematics; so one may take them in a whole variety of subjects. On the other hand, the suggestion that no one could do a Dip.H.E. unless he had two A-levels might well preclude a number of school-leavers who would derive no particular benefit from taking two A-levels but who would make extremely good infant teachers. Because the qualifications necessary for teaching, say, A-level physics and chemistry are, whatever anyone may say, clearly quite different from the qualifications which make a superb infant teacher. In saying that they are different, I do not mean in any sense to disparage infant teachers. I come from the academic world and I know many very clever people. But clever academic people are not necessarily those who are the best with young children. I well remember discussing this point with the head of a college of education who said that one of her cleverest pupils was quite unable to see a class of 40 five-year-olds across the road. It is perfectly true that the qualities that are required, of charac-
128
ter, personality and sheer competence in coping, may not necessarily be those which go with two good A-levels, and it would be a great hardship to the teaching profession if such people were automatically to be ruled out. But, of course, once one makes this statement, one makes it more difficult to give a very high qualification to the Dip.H.E., and that makes for a real dilemma.
My Lords, I turn to the second cycle. It seems to me that all teachers will welcome the proposal that professional teachers will have a major part to play in the training of teachers. The whole idea of professional tutors coming in to teach, particularly in the second year of the second cycle, means that those engaged in teaching will have a real part to play in the training of teachers. Like everyone else deeply interested in education, I could go on for a long time; there are so many points on which I should like to touch. But may I conclude by just saying that there are, I think, three practical points that ought to be considered? The first is that with all the statistics given at the end, little is said in the Report about the very important statistics of the numbers of future teachers that we need in relation to the future school population. This is an important point that ought to be looked at when this matter is considered.
The second is the time scale. There is a tremendous amount to be said for looking at the third cycle. I am not absolutely convinced that the first and second cycle could be brought in in 1975. I do not know whether anybody who is not connected with local government can imagine the turmoil which is going on, with reorganisation in sight in 1974 and the fact that every local education authority will be different in about two years' time from now. I believe that to bring in a major reform requires thought and money and a proper administrative organisation, and I am not absolutely convinced that everybody in education has the time and energy—with everything else with which they must contend at this moment—to do this by 1975, the first full year in the new reformed local government. I think that this matter, too, needs looking at.
The last point I would make raises again the whole question of the cost of supply teachers. In the second year of

129
the second cycle, if it is intended that teachers will teach only four days a week, there will clearly be need, in rough and ready figures, of a 20 per cent. increase in supply teachers to make up for the gap caused by those who at present would teach for a whole teaching week and who in future will teach for only four days. I say these things, not as criticisms but, I hope, as constructive suggestions on points which I think need to be looked at with great care. I would conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, for giving us such an interesting, important and valuable Report on the training and education of teachers, and by once again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for giving us the opportunity to debate it.
3.49 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am sure that we have all been very much impressed by the knowledge and experience displayed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I think that she has put some extremely important points in relation to this Report, one or two of which I had hoped to mention myself, but she has done so so cogently that I will try to omit those parts from my own remarks. I, too, would join in the congratulations both to the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, and to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for providing us in their two different ways with the basis for this debate. With the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I feel that we have not had very long in which to digest the actual Report. I know there were many leaks, but I prefer to see the authentic text myself, and I must say that I should have liked to have a little more time for consultation. I have not even had the opportunity of doing something which I should very much have welcomed, which is to talk with the Welsh representative, Professor Webster, with whose notes of reservation and extension I am entirely in accord.
It seemed to me that one of the first —shall I say?—"gimmicks" of the Report referred to the putting of the third cycle first. I am not quite sure what the intention of Lord James and his colleagues was—there is perhaps a touch of mischief in this—but it has been suggested that this particular proposal of the very wide extension of in-service training was a "sweetener" which ought
130
to come fairly early on in the Report, because the more contentious matters were contained in the other two cycles. There is no note of criticism that I have observed anywhere about the proposals for greater in-service training; but there are some questions that one has to ask. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that it is difficult to say that this should be obligatory. On the other hand, if it is not obligatory, then the keen, active and enthusiastic teachers will go for courses and so on, and the others, who may need the stimulus more or who may be working for education authorities with less resources and fewer teachers, may find greater difficulty in taking advantage of opportunities that they really need. There is the very difficult question of who pays and what the costing of this will be. I have a horrible apprehension that this quite excellent and noncontroversial proposal may founder on the rocks of economy. Therefore it seems that the least we in this House can do to-day is to put all the weight of authority that we can command behind these proposals, at any rate, because I am quite certain that the quality of the teaching profession in the country as a whole would be vastly improved if the kind of extension of in-service training contemplated in the Report could be implemented.
I welcome it particularly because of some of the remarks which are made in other sections about the confusion and overloading at the present time of the initial stages of training. One cannot cram in everything in the earlier stages so as to cover the personal education and training of the teacher concerned, the professional skills and teaching practice which are necessary, and the wider basis of personal culture which is very desirable. Everyone, as Lord James and his colleagues rightly pointed out, has his or her own particular enthusiasm and feels it to be essential that this should be covered somewhere during the teacher's early training. Quite frankly, I have my own, which is that I believe that no teacher should leave any training college—I betray my generation by using that term—or college of education without some thought being given to the multi-cultural society in which we live. I was sorry that in the earlier part of the Report the phrase "multi-cultural" was used but then degenerated into "multi-racial".

131
That is one of my own strong and passionate convictions. We had an interesting debate on this matter a few months ago and the suggestion that this subject should be covered only in colleges of education which happened at the moment to be in areas of racial tension seemed to be quite inadequate, because nobody knows where a person will be teaching later in his or her career. But, having said that, I recognise that there are many other subjects which one cannot hope to get into the curriculum, even in a four-year, two-cycle course, and that they should be pursued at a later stage in one's teaching career.
I should, however, mention, by reference to the practical problems which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, touched on, a suspicion which I know is current in some circles, that if you combine a considerable expansion of in-service training at the later stages with this notion of licensed teachers at an earlier stage, the licensed teachers may be used as a form of cheap labour in order to fill the gaps left by those who are away from school to fulfil their in-service training. I am sure that Lord James and his colleagues were well aware that this suspicion would be aroused in the minds of professional organizations, and I hope that the Minister may be able to say something to allay such suspicions.
May I now turn to the more contentious aspects of the Report? Among them is this proposal for a diploma—the Report says "in higher education" but I agree with Robin Pedley in thinking that it is better phrased as "Diploma of Higher Education". That seems to me slightly more accurate—I grant that it is difficult—but these people will not after all be studying higher education. This is a contentious proposal, because although at its best it might be an exciting and constructive development, at its worst, as the Economist pointed out, it
"could become a cheap way of mopping up the demand for higher education."
It depends very much on the attitude of people in the world of higher education in general as to which of these two forms this particular new qualification might take. It worries me very much that Lord James and his colleagues did not come down quite firmly in favour of either the universities or the C.N.A.A.
132
validating this particular qualification. It seems to me quite a wrong concept that this proposed National Council on the Training and Education of Teachers should be responsible for validating the qualification. I can understand the arguments for such a body for the organisation and administration of teacher training, but it seems to me that if you have a qualification which is not in the hands of the universities or of the C.N.A.A. then it is very difficult indeed to expect those other bodies in the field of education to accept it.
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Baroness, but may I say that if she reads the Report she will find that most of us hoped that it would be validated by the C.N.A.A. and the rest of us hoped it would be validated by the universities.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I have of course read the Report and I had read that remark, but it seemed to me that just to express a pious hope and to leave the possibility of its being done by another mechanism was not good enough. That is really the gravamen of my accusation: that they should not have allowed this loophole at all but should have come down quite firmly on one or other. I know that one cannot coerce autonomous universities, but it seems to me that it should have been expressed quite emphatically that if one were to have a qualification of this kind its validation should be in the hands of those bodies who now validate qualifications in higher education and that it should not be left to a new organisation which I do not believe will have genuine parity of esteem, whatever is said about it. I do not think that we should delude ourselves about that. That was for me a major disappointment. I saw reports of the Press conference which was attended by the noble Lord, Lord James, and his colleagues. It was said there that they could not be specific as to how far the Dip.H.E. would be accepted or would rank as a credit towards a degree. One can understand that in all the circumstances, but it just underlines the doubts that many of us feel about the wisdom of this suggested possible form of organisation.
I thought there was a very interesting suggestion made when the Report by the

133
General Secretary of the Association of Teachers in Colleges and Departments of Education appeared, in which he suggested that it might be better to have a two-year pass degree (which I know has been discussed in educational circles) as the first stage, to be followed by a diploma which would be a qualification in education. It seems to me that this is at least worth considering, because the other point which worries me about the Dip.H.E. is that the intention, as I understand it, is that it should not be confined to intending teachers; that there would be an effort to break down what is called the "mono-technic isolation" of training for education by allowing others who may not have any intention or wish to teach to take this particular qualification. But if that is so it would be very unfortunate if this qualification could be taken only in colleges of education; it ought to be available in other establishments and institutions. This is possibly the hope and wish of Lord James of Rusholme and his colleagues, but if this is what they wish I do not think they say it sufficiently clearly. I should have thought that one could have a two-year pass degree. There could be a break and then you could build it up to an honours degree, or take professional training, not necessarily in teaching, but possibly in social work, hospital administration or some other branch of service, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned. This would be a better proposition than a Dip.H.E. to be taken in colleges of education and validated exclusively by the special body concerned with education, if you do not have any luck with the universities or the C.N.A.A.
If one wants to turn the colleges of education into liberal arts colleges, or something of that kind, this can be done satisfactorily only if they are woven into the general fabric of higher education and are not left as the even more junior partners in the partnership. This is one of my fundamental regrets about the James Report. While I think it has the best intentions of trying to break down the tripartite system in which we have the universities, the polytechnics, and then the colleges of education very much behind, I do not think their practical proposals are going to achieve the end, which is close to my heart, of breaking down some of these distinctions.
134
That brings me to the point about relationships with the universities. I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, drew attention to the note on the position in my own county in Wales where, quite frankly, whatever our other drawbacks may be, I think we are less snobbish than other parts of the United Kingdom. I was not persuaded by the much too facile conclusion on page 55, paragraph 5.20, of the Report in which the noble Lord, Lord James, and the majority of his colleagues, said:
"… most of the criticisms"—
that is of the relationship between the universities and the colleges of education—
"are in effect comments on the system itself rather than on the spirit in which it is operated …"
I do not think that is true. I do not think the system is wrong. I think in some places it has been the spirit in which it has been operated. I do not want to apportion blame, particularly because I know that these things are not always easy and that they depend very much on local circumstances and personalities, but I would go very firmly with the Note of Reservation on the preceding page by Mr. Porter and Professor Webster, who were also the authors of the so-called Note of Extension—a new phrase for a Minority Report. They say:
"Two of us do not share the view expressed in paragraphs 5.16–5.19 of the influence of the universities on the colleges. Our experience of teacher education suggests that any examples of false academicism or enervation that may exist have far more complex causes than merely the nature of a college's link with a university."
In other words, it is the people as much as the system.
It seems to me that although one may well criticise what has happened in certain Area Training Organisations based on universities—and we have Sir Alec Clegg's comments on "the dreadful little cabals which exist in certain places",—to accept that as being necessary or even the norm seems to be defeatist, and I therefore warmly support the pattern which we have managed to work out in Wales and I hope that some people in other parts of the United Kingdom may feel able to reach a comparable relationship. If we do not, we are likely to take

135
steps which will at least seem to be diminishing the status of those who teach the majority of our children.
I have not been in touch very recently with those concerned with these matters. It is some years since I was a "Shadow" in another place on the subject of education and had a great deal to do at that time with those who were in charge of the colleges of education. I know how much they valued—and I believe they still value—their links with the universities. I do not think that there has been much support from the colleges of education for breaking those links. If one did so by setting up a different form of organisation, one would be re-dividing the profession, the two wings of which, graduate and non-graduate, have at least been beginning to coalesce. I do not think that calling something a B.Ed. or a Dip.H.E., or whatever, would really make up for that.
I do not much like the proposed regional organisations. I do not go quite so far as Professor Brian Simon who called them, "rootless organisations", "16 Kafka Castles", and suggested that they would be a rather nondescript collection of representatives backed by a powerful bureaucracy. I do not go so far as that, but I do not feel that they are as satisfactory as something on the lines of the Area Training Organisations could be, even if the hopes for them have not always been realised. I am rather worried about the proliferation of regional organisations which we are now having put before us before we have had the benefit of the studies of the much lamented Lord Crowther and his colleagues which have not yet been placed before the public or the Government. I know that universities regard themselves as without such organisations, but at least that could be discussed.
I am glad to see that the proposal is that in Wales we shall be left much as we are and not be interfered with. I repeat that I am not very happy about the proposed regional organisations in the way in which they are being expected to work, people coming together just for that particular occasion and then dispersing to their own avocations in different institutions which will have no necessarily organic connection with the training of teachers.
136
Finally, I think I should refer again to the suspicions that have been aroused in certain areas. One ought to voice them in a debate of this kind without necessarily subscribing to them. It has been put to me quite strongly by those who are closely connected with the teaching profession that they regard some of the proposals in the James Report as a veiled method of economising on teacher training, or reducing the facilities for teacher training. For example, if one is going to take into colleges of education a number of entrants who have no intention of teaching one will reduce the number of places available for those who wish to teach. How well justified this is I do not know, but I think it should be mentioned because it is a quite widely held view of people in authoritative positions. They are suspicious, also, that some of these proposals could lead to higher education on the cheap, with inferior facilities in a third tier of colleges firmly placed below the existing university and polytechnic structure. I am with the "extenders" in their note at the end, and because they were a minority of two that makes me look on some of the rest of the Report with some hesitation and some slight suspicion.
I strongly believe that national policy for higher education should be directed towards unifying rather than dividing the system. Whatever its intentions, I am not satisfied that the Report makes for the kind of unifying forces that I myself would wish for. I felt it only right and proper that with the warm congratulations which we must all extend to the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, and his colleagues for the intensive and expeditious work which they have undertaken, we should let them know that we have these question marks in our minds. This is a first debate, an early debate, and one does not wish to be dogmatic in any way, but hope that our function this afternoon will be to put forward the points of difference, as well as the points of accord, which we may have.
4.11 p.m.
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: My Lords, it is no form of words to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for the very kind things he said in opening this debate, and I am very glad that some of my colleagues, who after all did most of the work, are in

137
your Lordships' House to hear him pay such a generous tribute to their labours. It is obviously very difficult to speak briefly about a subject, the training of teachers, that has occupied a great deal of one's thinking for over a year and has been in one's mind for a much longer time. I find myself, too, in a curious personal position. In your Lordships' House at this moment is someone that I once taught, and someone who once taught me and who I am delighted to say is going to take part in the debate at a later stage. I am the middleman, which is a curious position for me to be in.
Your Lordships must forgive me if, in an effort to be short, I select only a few of the topics covered by the Report and try to clarify in the baldest possible way some of the ideas that were in the minds of the Committee when they made their recommendations. May I make two initial points. The first is to admit the difficulty of the subject. It is a difficulty illustrated by the McNair Report. Many people—and we have heard this even this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley—speak as though in that Report there was an agreed series of recommendations on which, in some way, we have gone back. May I remind your Lordships that the McNair Committee were split exactly equally, and that the then Government accepted the findings of that half of the Committee which included neither the Chairman nor. I may say, the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, with whose ideas on organisation my own Committee found themselves on the whole in greater agreement.
May I also remind your Lordships that it is difficult to speak of the education and training of teachers as a whole, for no profession includes within itself a greater spread of purely academic abilities and qualities of temperament. It is right that it should do so for the variety of tasks that he or she is called on to perform makes nonsense of the idea that there is in fact a single entity called "the teacher". As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has reminded us, the range of gifts required by the teacher of 4-yearolds or 5-year-olds, the teacher of the average boy or girl of 13 or 14—one of the most neglected areas of the whole educational scene—or the man or woman who seeks to instruct and inspire a group
138
of gifted historians or scientists in a highly selective sixth form, means that a very heavy burden is laid on anyone who seeks to legislate for what is called the teaching profession. Yet it is a variety of which we must always be aware, must always seek to encourage and must allow for in our education and training.
With these words of explanation and apology, or as the Report calls it "exegesis", may I turn to the Report itself? The chorus of commination that greeted the Report before it was published, or indeed even before it was written, was mainly concerned with some of its anticipated administrative proposals. Our greatest fear is that these aspects, important though they are, will obscure points which we believe are much more important. As has been pointed out already, the Report begins with emphasis on the third cycle, as we have called it—that is, on in-service or post-experience training, or whatever the fashionable phrase may be. Our actual suggestion is that as a first step every teacher should be entitled to one term of refreshment and further education in every seven years.
My Lords, you can see the kind of difficulty we were up against, because already this afternoon, in the short time we have been discussing this subject we have been castigated, on the one hand, for not making it once in five years, while on the other hand the gravest queries have been raised as to whether we were not over-optimistic in making it one in seven because of the cost. You can see how difficult it is to serve on a Committee of this kind. To us this is of the most crucial importance, not simply because of the advance of knowledge which leads to almost every teacher becoming out of date; not simply because important changes in the curricula and methods are often failing to make any impact felt in the actual classroom; not simply as a gimmick, but because of the effect that a planned expansion of in-service work could have on the initial training of teachers. If we are to consider the initial training properly we have to put the third cycle first. We have seen and heard abundant evidence that too much has been crammed into this training, much of it material that requires greater intellectual experience and greater practical experience than the

139
student teacher possesses and that could possibly be omitted could we be sure that the teacher would have an opportunity of pursuing it later in his career
A second more controversial and, I think, misunderstood aspect of the Report is that it comes out firmly in favour of a consecutive rather than a concurrent pattern. We have, that is to say, proposed two or three years' experience of higher education, followed by two years of specifically professional training. But it is necessary to be clear that the distinction between concurrent and consecutive courses is not so rigid as is sometimes supposed and as I think, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, if I may say so, gave the impression that he thought. It cannot be too often emphasised that the proposals of the Report make it perfectly possible for what the cliché calls "the committed teacher" to study subjects related to the actual work of teaching, including practical experience, throughout the entire course. It will indeed be possible for some whole colleges to concentrate entirely on such students. What we hope to gain is a greater variety of career prospects for the students in the colleges who are not committed in this way and, of course—very important—a more rational use of teaching power. The staffing ratio of the colleges is not ungenerous: it is often more favourable than that of some universities, including, I may say, my own. Yet the uneconomic arrangements of teaching practice, coupled with the desire to offer a very wide range of subjects in a concurrent course, or a B.Ed., lead to situations in which one can quite literally find a class of over 200 students being lectured to on the value of teaching in small groups.
The second of the two years of professional training which we propose would be devoted to work actually on the job, supplemented by day release; and I would emphasise—again I cannot do this too often—that this is something in addition to the present training. The licensed teachers of the Report are as fully trained as the teachers now entering the schools. We propose, in other words, to make a reality of what is now called the probationary year, at present one of the sickest jokes in the whole of education. It is suggested that this can in time be im-
140
proved out of all recognition, first by the designation of professional tutors in the schools, whose special responsibility it would be to act as helpers and advisers to their new colleagues; and, secondly, by day or block release to a professional centre in a college, a department, a college of further education or developing from one of the existing teachers' centres. These will he places where the available expertise of the neighbourhood, expertise of every appropriate kind, can be mobilised for the help both of the new teacher and for in-service training.
The Report has been criticised for being Utopian in these suggestions. But, my Lords, we do realise that staffing ratios would have to make allowances for these new obligations. We do realise that not all schools are suitable for first appointment, and that there are sparsely populated areas where day release would be difficult. But if the need to make special arrangements for special cases is to be a reason for doing nothing, then we must give up our attempts at reforming almost anything at all. There comes a point where a mere enumeration of difficulties becomes regarded as a substitute for creative action; and some of our critics seem to have passed that point.
Let me say a few words about qualifications. We have, as your Lordships well know, suggested this two-year qualification, the Diploma of Higher-Education, based on an element of general education coupled with the more specialised study of two elective subjects. Among the demands made to us, one of the most insistent was that the work of the colleges should be diversified so that others besides professional teachers could be educated in them. We did not set out deliberately to accomplish that end. We aimed at providing, as we were told to do, an education suitable for intending teachers. But, of course, we were always aware that it could be a valuable prelude to other professional training, and would also have effects on the whole of higher education by providing something at present conspicuously lacking, a two-year qualification.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, whose speech I am listening to with the most intense interest, but I wonder whether at

141
this stage I could coax him into telling us why he did not take the bull by the horns and call it a degree rather than a diploma, thus forcing the hands of the universities.
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: My Lords, I shall have to think whether it is better to bring the actual reasons in our minds into the light of day. If I decide in the affirmative, I will bring them into the light of day at an appropriate point later in my speech. Perhaps it is the kind of matter on which in another place it is said, "I will write …" But I will do my best.
As I was saying, what we proposed would provide a two-year qualification; and it would become, moreover, a qualification not confined to colleges of education but capable of being taken in other places of higher and further education. Our hope was that it would be validated by the C.N.A.A.; but, of course (if I may answer the noble Baroness, Lady White), we are not in a position to dictate to the C.N.A.A., any more than to universities, as to what they shall validate; we can merely hope. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, it might conceivably be that, because unconsciously we felt there was less likelihood of getting a two-year degree, entry to the course for which would necessarily for some years be only five "O" levels validated by the C.N.A.A., we put it the other way round, for (shall we say?) a future of twenty years. I do not know whether the noble Lord. Lord Robbins, shares the kind of thinking that went into that decision. But the door is also open for a university to validate it, if it felt it appropriate, or for a new examination machinery to be established if this were decided. The existence of this two-year diploma would of course add a dimension of choice to the sixth-form leaver, for it could, we should hope, discharge four functions. It could be a basis for the professional training of teachers in the way we describe; it could similarly be a foundation for other kinds of professional training; it could be an important terminal qualification leading to careers in industry, business or Government; and lastly, for some students, it could be the basis for specifically academic work, sometimes in the college itself or sometimes in a university or polytechnic.
142
Finally, we have affirmed our belief that after two years' study for the diploma or three years for an academic degree, and after two years of professional training, the student should have a degree based partly on his professional competence, and on the award of which teachers themselves should have a significant voice. The conception of an all-degree profession is one that we accept. What we reject is that the degree should be a university degree as we now understand it. The good university graduate who turns, say, to infant or middle school teaching can be superb if that is what he really wants. But if a graduate, merely because he—or she—is a graduate, in any subject, at any level, whatever his sense of purpose or qualities of personality, is to be preferred to a skilled and dedicated teacher with another qualification, say our Dip.H.E., then we must ask ourselves very seriously of whose interest we are really thinking. Of the children, who should be our main concern? Of the prospective teacher, forced through what is very often for him an inappropriate and frustrating course of study for the sake of a label? Or are we thinking simply of securing a spurious prestige for our profession?
My Lords, I have spoken too long. I have left myself no time to discuss any details of administration and on that I would simply say that the Committee regarded the present university-administered and university-dominated A.T.O. structure as inappropriate for the new and very much expanded system (for example, as regards the third. cycle) that we envisage. It is totally misleading to speak of destroying the university connection, tenuous though that often is. That universities will play a continuing and creative part will be as right as it is inevitable, not simply because they themselves will continue to produce and train very many teachers but because, in the new regional bodies into which we hope the A.T.O.s will develop, it is collaboration between interested parties that we wish to see in a structure flexible enough to establish links with all forms of higher education, and capable of adaptation to changing needs and evolving policies.
Whether the whole or any part of this Report, if it is implemented, will be successful in its primary aim of improving

143
the quality of teachers, or in any of the other tasks which may emerge from it, clearly depends on a number of factors. It will depend on whether the necessary means are provided by Government. We gave no detailed costings, and have been criticised for not doing so. But they depend upon a number of imponderables and on decisions of policy about which we felt we were incompetent to decide. Nevertheless, such sums as we did for ourselves seemed to indicate that our proposals are not in fact impossibly expensive. They do not, we believe, involve greater expenditure than would be fully justified by the necessities of reform; and we have been encouraged (and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Young, also, with her experience of local government will be encouraged) that as keen-eyed a participant in local government as Sir William Alexander has given a wholehearted welcome to the Report, including specifically this section.
More important to those proposals are the questions whether the universities and polytechnics are prepared to enter into a new kind of partnership in teacher education, and whether the colleges are prepared to seize imaginatively and enthusiastically on what can be, for them, a greater independence to experiment with what in some cases can lead to a new and valuable kind of higher education. That is the responsibility of the colleges. But most important of all, of course, will be the attitude of the teachers in the schools to proposals which give them a far greater role at every stage in the preparation of their successors. Here, my Lords, both my hopes and my fears are greatest. I simply cannot believe that the majority of teachers are so lacking in faith in themselves that they will reject proposals which give them much of what they have long demanded and rightly desire; proposals which have as their aim to raise the status of the profession by preparing people better to enter it, by giving them more control over it, and by providing greater opportunities to develop both as teachers and as people throughout their careers.
My Lords, the new responsibilities on the teaching profession may be heavy; the rewards may be such that they will altogether enlarge the teacher's vision of his task. I feel that the Committee can legitimately ask, not that everyone should
144
agree with their proposals but that the Report should be carefully read before it is criticised, and that those who criticise it must be prepared to suggest alternative solutions which remain within the realm of the possible yet are inspired by some new vision of what the profession of teaching can and should—and I would say must—become.
4.35 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for introducing this debate. I was very diffident about intervening in the debate, and now, following the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, who is such a distinguished educationist, I am doubly diffident. But I hope that the House and the noble Lord will bear with an intelligent amateur, for the only qualification I have for intervening is that I have a strong interest in education—though that hardly seems to be a qualification.
Having read the Report carefully, I feel that I have earned the reward of a few brief comments, and here I must say that I disagree in a small way with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, who found it so easy and so pleasurable to read. I found this a very difficult Report. I only wish that I had been able to listen to the persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord James, before we had this debate.
The Report was not made easier by its presentation or its style. Its prose is just opaque. However, one cannot deny the effect that it has had in stimulating public debate, nor the effect it has had on the necessity of reviewing teacher training seriously and logically. The Committee proposed, as we heard this afternoon, a complete reorganisation of teacher training and this needs a really concentrated analysis by all experts and all organisations in the educational field. We have heard what the noble Lord, Lord James, has said about the division and the training and the three cycles. Personally, I see little merit in using the word "cycles" and substituting it for the familiar word "courses"; and it really does not make explanation easier when the cycles are deliberately described in reverse order. For me, trying to follow the arguments was like completing a jig-saw puzzle. It is all very fine for the noble Lord, Lord James, and other

145
great educationists to put their case in this way, but it has to be put for quite ordinary people. What first struck me was that many of the recommendations did not really need a complete restructuring of the present-day pattern of teacher training colleges. It seems to me that by a change in the curriculum of courses one could do some of the good things that the Report suggests.
I find that the usual criticism about colleges of education is, in the case of some of them, quite correct and I sympathise with it, but I cannot accept their wholesale condemnation. As with teachers, colleges, schools and universities, some are better than others, some good and some indifferent. I accept that the present three-year college-based course does not always sufficiently educate or train our prospective teachers. There is a widespread criticism about too much theory and very little practical teaching, which too often makes the new teacher's probationary year such a traumatic experience. I felt that the Report had swung too much away from academic and intellectual education by reducing the period to one year. Even the excellent idea contained in the Report of a teacher tutor in every school to take charge of the raw recruit might still leave him or her "halfbaked". I do not think the one year is sufficient.
The first cycle is described as personal education of the student and is the most ingenious proposal, but it does raise serious doubts. It is in essence a two year course of higher education with an award at the end. More education is very desirable for all our young people, and some students would see the James colleges of education as means of gaining an award at the end. However, no declaration of intent to embark on a teaching career is required, and this makes it doubly attractive. But is this really a way of increasing the number of teachers? Already many of our teachers go into teaching rather reluctant about it as a career. This has nothing to do with the virtues of a period of uncommitted education. But why should the Ministry of Education pay for such an idea? Here I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, when she talks about the cost. I wonder whether any Secretary of State will jump at this. One can see the loophole in this if it is applied to other professions;
146
for example, supposing we apply it to medicine, having training without commitment.
A great deal has been made of the proposals of the third cycle which apply to serving teachers' "in-service training". It has been hailed on all sides as if it were a very original idea. But is it an original idea? It would hold out great promise if it were made compulsory. So long as it is voluntary it would show only a marginal improvement on what exists already in the profession. Intelligent and forward-looking teachers take advantage of any facilities that are available for further self-education and training. The courses vary all over the country. In some local authorities they are encouraged and even tempted to attend courses. In others, as I have said, it is left to the individual teacher to be progressive and keep in step with new thinking and new methods. There is, however, everything to be said for the Report's stress on the systematic retraining of working teachers, re-education of working teachers. But personally I am not exactly overwhelmed by the generosity of one term's release in every seven years going up to one in five years. After all, what does one think of one year's release in twenty years of teaching? I do not believe that this would be the quickest and most economical way of improving the quality of education. Here again, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young; I think it would require a lot of money, not a little.
There are a few more points that I wish to make before I close. I am not convinced by the Report's claim that colleges of education will become less isolated. I think the proposal to divorce colleges from contacts with the universities will increase their isolation and even lower their status. In fact, some educational bodies have accused the Committee of inaugurating a three-tier system in the teaching profession. We can only hope that constructive action will follow the Report, and in asking for speedy implementation I believe that that is the one thing that should be avoided. I have always thought that we make too great demands on our teachers, and as parents often delegate many of our own responsibilities to them. The fact that we underpay them underlines our lack of gratitude.

147
We expect them to be saints and psychologists and able to maintain discipline by remote control, something called personality.
I will end by referring to a Fabian pamphlet written before the James Report was published. I will not speak of the anxieties that the author expressed about the Report's predicted recommendations because they were rumoured recommendations. That would be unfair. I will refer instead to the author's plea that the Department of Education, the local education authority and voluntary bodies should consider analytically the likely effects of the recommendations upon existing philosophies and practices before either accepting, implementing or rejecting this Report.
4.45 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, I am able to make only a very minor contribution to this important debate, partly because my knowledge of the subject is indeed very limited and also because, only too obviously I fear, I am rapidly running out of voice. I want, however, with certain safeguards and some explanation, to speak in strong support of a part of this Report which has received this afternoon only tepid praise so far, and that is the proposed two-year Diploma in Higher Education.
The safeguard that I should like to see is a guarantee from the universities that satisfactory completion of the Diploma of Education will carry exemption from some part, at any rate, of the subsequent degree course; that it should he possible, and indeed easy, and should become the common practice for people who have completed the Diploma of Education to move on, either through the machinery of the C.N.A.A. or through mature entry into the universities, and complete degrees in a shorter period of time. This in itself would do a great deal, if it became a widespread and commonly accepted practice to integrate the Diploma into the university scene. Your Lordships may say—and my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, was I think implying—if it is important to have this contact, why not make it a two-year degree course and work to get it into the universities straight away? I think the answer to that is that it would not happen, and I think the noble Lord knows it would not
148
happen, for a variety of reasons, not least the existing pressure on the limited resources of the universities, which are not likely, despite the pressures from many sides, to be increased to the extent that would be necessary to introduce these two-year degrees on a large scale.
But I believe there are other reasons why a two-year Diploma in Higher Education has much merit in itself, and these reasons are not so much their contribution to teacher training. One reason why I hesitated to intervene was because my interest in this Diploma is, frankly, less in the contribution it makes to teacher training than in this new experiment in higher education, which I think can be used to open opportunities of higher education to a great many people who would not get it unless we had something of this kind. There are up and down the country a large number of people in middle life who did not, for one reason or another, get the opportunity of higher education, and a new, flexible diploma of this kind, leading for some people to teaching but for other people to a wide range of professional and semi-professional and technical jobs for which they would not otherwise be qualified, seems to me to be something we greatly need at the present moment.
We have on the one hand a considerable number of older women, in their middle thirties, who want to get into full-time work, with 20 years' work ahead of them and who are not qualified for the kind of work their innate abilities would enable them to do. If they could take these two-year diploma courses, it would open up possibilities which at present it is very hard indeed for them to obtain. Even more important, in my view, is the fact that at present, and increasingly as the years go on, there are and there will be a large number of men—many of them at present in manual-working occupations—who, when they left school, never thought of going for any kind of higher education, but who are perfectly capable of doing it. These men, with flexible entry into this diploma, might find themselves both getting educational opportunities and moving into careers for which there will be a demand for their services but which they in the past never thought would be open to them.
May I give one illustration of the kind of person I am thinking about, which

149
made a deep impression on me? In the 1970 General Election I had, in the constituency in which I was fighting, a decaying mining town. I talked at considerable length to a man in his early forties who had come out of the mines. He was a man of obviously high intelligence and with a deep interest in current affairs and in the affairs of the nation as a whole. This man, through lack of educational opportunity and lack of career guidance, had taken a job as a school porter. I would swear that that man was capable of being a school teacher rather than a school porter, if the opportunities to be found in a Diploma of Education of this sort had been available for him to take.
If we are going to look at this two-year course and the way it can be used for people of this kind, it means that we have to look at the sort of entry qualifications we are going to ask for from people, for them to take the Diploma in Education or Higher Education. There is reference in the Report to "A"-level qualifications. May we ask ourselves just how important it is that we should insist on "A"-level qualifications? Can we not discover equivalents in people's experience and achievements that can be taken instead and in lieu of "A"-level qualifications? What do we want "A"-level qualifications for? For some kinds of study we want "A"-level qualifications because we need to know that a person knows as much about a subject as an "A"-level implies. Where this is the case, then indeed you must keep the "A"-level qualification. But in the main we want an "A"-level qualification because we want evidence that the person has the intelligence and capacity to take the course. The point at which you ensure standards—and I am second to none in my determination to ensure standards—is at the end of the course, not at the beginning. Can we not direct our attention to finding ways in which there are substitutes for "A"-level qualifications which will give us the guarantee that the individual taking the course is capable of pursuing that course of study and completing it satisfactorily? Then we can open up the opportunities which this proposal puts before us to these vast numbers of people—people who at present have no hope of getting any form of higher education—for that higher educa-
150
tion which leads to the jobs which they want and which society needs them to do.
It is for that reason that I think this experiment in higher education, just because it is new, can have a flexibility of approach, both in terms of entry and in terms of content, which I do not think realistically we should get if we tried to put this diploma inside the universities. If it were completely divorced from the universities, then indeed it would come to be regarded undoubtedly as very much a second best; but if it is linked with the universities, both administratively and because of a growing practice of people with the two-year diploma to move on to universities, then it seems to me that it is a creative suggestion in the field of education which is long overdue.
4.55 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has just made a very moving and extremely good plea for widening and opening our methods of admission to higher education. One might also say that she made about the best "plug" for the Open University that I have heard for a long time, because this is exactly the method that is employed by the Open University for admission. She is perfectly right in saying that when one is dealing with admission to higher education for the whole range of people within the community, one must not restrict oneself to the "A"-level. The "A"-level may be very appropriate at the point of leaving school, and it may be very appropriate, as she has justly said, for those who are going to study science and very professional subjects. This afternoon we are discussing something which is on the one hand narrow, and on the other hand extremely wide. On the one hand, it is narrow because we are dealing with teachers' education; on the other hand, it is wide because it necessarily concerns the whole of our higher educational system. Our higher educational system in the past 15 years has been completely changed; first, by the major piece of engineering carried out by Lord Robbins and his Committee, and now we are having this time-bomb put under teacher education by the noble Lord, Lord James.
When one looks at this subject one has to ask whether we are trying at this

151
point to do everything, or to do one particular thing. The James Report is concerned essentially with the training of teachers, and I think all of us would agree that in what is termed the "third cycle"—if the noble Lord, Lord James, were here I might make a quip about the use of the word "cycle", but as he is not I will refrain from doing so—his Committee propose that there should be an in-service training of teachers. That is something with which we all agree, although I think some doubt whether it can be afforded. The noble Lord, Lord James, has pointed out that almost certainly from the analysis that has been made this can be done, and others have suggested that one term in seven years is inadequate. I served in a university for 40 years, and I got six weeks off in the 40 years. Nowadays, people talk about sabbatical leave. If I had had a sabbatical year off I should have had nearly six years off in that time, but I never got the six years. I would say that one term in seven is at least a start. It may not be enough for going on, but I think we ought to accept it as a good way of beginning this scheme. Unless we begin it, we shall find that it is only carried through accidentally, here and there.
I have had a slight experience of this subject, because when I first went to the University of Newcastle 25 years ago, we started running refresher courses in chemistry for teachers. To my great delight and pleasure, the first year 20 teachers turned up. We did not hold the course for another three years, and three years later we advertised the course and 20 teachers turned up, of whom 18 were the same as the ones who had turned up the previous time. We advertised the course three years later, and once more roughly 20 teachers turned up, and I think there were now 16 of those who had attended the previous two courses. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, suggested, one of the difficulties—he was rather trying to shatter his Liberal principles—was that compulsion might be necessary, because the fact is that the people who come to these courses are those who would in any case go and study the subject some way or another and advance their understanding, and unless one makes it at least compulsory on the local authority to make provision,
152
if not compulsory upon the actual teacher to attend, then one will find that no provision is made for attendance at these courses. So I think that for the in-service training some degree of compulsion must be brought in.
I now come to the other part of the James Report which is essentially concerned with the first cycle. A great deal of reference has been made to the two-year course, and some analogy was drawn —I think I am right in saying by the noble Baroness, Lady Young—with the liberal arts college in America. But it is not really analogous with the liberal arts college in America, because that is a four-year college. This is a two-year college and one must realise that the comparison is with the two-year colleges in America. The two-year colleges are run in several States. The two States which run them most are the States of California and New York. I have examined the New York one very closely, and I spent several weeks looking at the whole of the New York university system. I found that the two-year college has grown enormously. It is not a college which gives a degree; it gives a preliminary qualification which allows one to go on to a four-year college. I am very sceptical as to whether we ought to introduce the two-year college system into our teachers' training specifically. It is, I believe, a good thing to do but not for teachers, because I think the inevitable result of associating it with teachers' training is that one degrades teachers' training.
If we said that, at the start, we were going to have a two-year college for medical training and that students who did not want to go on could slip out and get a diploma, would one get the same number of people wanting to go in for medical training? The same question applies to dental training, engineering training or agricultural training. After all, these are all technical subjects. They are all subjects which require special technical training.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Before the war there was an ordinary degree in several subjects. People used to go on after matriculation, and the higher schools certificate was regarded as an intermediate examination in that degree course. If people who have taken their

153
A-levels are going to be put through two years of a rather intensive academic course, will they not be at more or less the same level as the people who took the simple ordinary degrees before the war, many of whom became extremely successful teachers?
LORD WYNNE-JONES: Certainly, my Lords; but the position is totally different to-day. In the first place—it would lead me too far away to answer the whole of the noble Lord's arguments—before the war admission to most universities was on an entirely different basis. It was not at all on the basis of advanced levels and they were taking this sort of course. It was a three-year course for a pass degree. That is perfectly true. But practically every university has dropped that three-year course for a pass degree; so we are now discussing something quite different.
LORD ARDWICK: Why?
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, it will really become a little difficult if we are now going to start a complete discussion of higher education. I was merely pointing out that there was going to be an isolation of the teachers from all the other professions if, simply in teacher training colleges, one were to have this two-year course. I think a two-year degree course can be a good thing, but it must apply throughout the whole of higher education and not specifically to teachers. It must also be thought out separately. My complaint about the introduction of this aspect into the James Report is that it is brought in specifically for teachers' training, and that the rejects will then just go out with a diploma. That is the wrong approach to something that is very important; that is, finding a better way of dealing with a large number of people.
In the State of New York, the importance of the two-year colleges has been widely recognised. In 1961, in the public sector of New York State University there were 61,000 students engaged on the four-year courses—that is, the liberal arts and other courses—and 21,700 on the two-year courses. In 1966, the figures had grown to 102,000 on the four-year courses and 53,800 on the two-year courses. This is a perfectly good thing, but it is done within a carefully worked
154
out system, and not within a system which is devised simply to form a fallout from teachers' training. That is the part to which I object.
The question whether one should necessarily link this with the universities is another matter. I am entirely in favour of a degree being given for teachers' education. But unless someone goes through a normal university course and then puts in his year's training, as teachers who work through a university course do, the universities do not find it too easy nor are they really too fond of fitting them in. If that can be done, then well and good, but I am sceptical about the universities doing it. It may be that it can be done through the polytechnics and the C.N.A.A., but one has to remember that the C.N.A.A. lays down its own standards. It lays down very clear and firm standards for a degree, as firm as those of a university and it is not prepared to be dictated to by any other body.
I was interested in looking at the educational system of another country which I visited; that is, the Soviet Union. I have here a little booklet which explains what happens there. I think it is wise, when we are talking about changing our system, that we should pay some attention to what is done in other countries and not work entirely in vacuo. Referring to teachers, the booklet states:
"As a rule, teachers' colleges graduate teachers in two specialities. A student majoring in history, for example, will choose singing or gymnastics or the like as an optional subject, or he may combine Russian or another national language and a foreign language, mathematics and physics, mathematics and technical drawing, etc. A teacher thus equipped will be able to use his energies to the full, even if the school is small. Though a teacher who graduates from a university has a better scientific background, a teachers' college alumnus has had better training in teaching methods and other educational subjects."
Then they make a distinction, which I think has applied in this country, between those who have been trained in the methods of teaching more than in specific subjects, and those who have been trained in specific subjects more than in the methods of teaching; and, as the noble Lord, Lord James, pointed out, there is such a spectrum in our educational system that we need both.
In conclusion, there are two points which I should like to make. Reference has already been made to the first, and

155
that is the matter of multi-cultural training. Reference is made to this in paragraph 2.10 of the James Report, which states:
"An understanding of the multi-cultural nature of society should feature in any general education".
I think we have to go beyond just a statement of that sort. We have to realise that this is now a very essential part of our whole education. Therefore, this must be emphasised very clearly. Secondly—and, surprisingly, the noble Lord, Lord James, who is himself a distinguished scientist, has not very specifically referred to this—except in specialised ways, our teaching of science throughout our schools is abominable, and most of our school teachers are untrained in science. I do not know what the figures are to-day, but when I inquired into this aspect about six years ago, I was assured by a professor of education that not more than 10 per cent. of our elementary school teachers had any training in science at all; and not merely were they not trained in science, but they had no exposure to science. If this is true, then it is really quite devastating. How can we run a modern society if we are running it with an educational system which is not geared towards science? So I would say that this becomes a matter of extreme importance in any planning of the training of teachers.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but would he not agree that it would be a good thing for society if we knew a little less about science and a little more about ethics?
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I think that to have little knowledge of science to-day is one of the most devastating inadequacies to which any human being can be subjected. I would say that it is absolutely essential that everyone should learn something about science. I do not say be a scientist. I hope that the noble Lord does not apply the same argument to music.
5.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am very reluctant to get caught in a cross-fire between science and ethics. It was the subject of heated debate in 1697, at the time of the Battle of the Books, which I was lecturing on last week, and
156
I am sure that your Lordships do not wish me on this occasion to repeat my well-worn lecture on that occasion. As your Lordships can tell from those remarks, I am professionally a lecturer, and, following a professor like the noble Lord who has just sat down, I am put somewhat in the position of a subaltern talking after a field marshal, and accordingly your Lordships will of course take my remarks with a pinch of salt".
I searched round for experience other than my own to bring to bear upon this, as I found, fascinating and, pace Lady Gaitskell, very readable Report; and so I rang up a friend, a girl, who has just graduated from a college of education, and said, "Can you tell me something about it?" She was a graduate of Cambridge, and she felt somewhat at a loss working alongside those who were engaged in the three-year diploma course. She had a kind of "tacked on" feeling. She also found it difficult to relate (though she is a very intelligent and well-educated person) some of the philosophical, psychological and sociological theory she was given with the practical tasks ahead of her in teaching at primary schools. She wanted to teach, as I have said, at primary schools, but she found at the end that by some departmental oversight her diploma covered only secondary schools; but I believe she has now put that matter right.
However, she did profit, she found, from what the noble Lord, Lord James, called the great sick joke of the educational world. She found her probationary year illuminating and exciting. But the moment she left the college of education she was dropped by them. They did not keep up with her; and she was even discouraged afterwards from using the library on grounds of there being too much pressure. So she was "dropped in at the deep end". Her headmistress, under whom she is working, told her that she, the headmistress, had, of course, with any new and young teacher, considerable powers of interference but that she would not indulge them; and the headmistress, in language which almost exactly mirrors that of the noble Lord, Lord James, and his colleagues in their Report, said that she would on no account violate her professional integrity. My friend would not have minded a little of her professional

157
integrity being violated if it was to help her become a better teacher.
My Lords, mention of this case is not of course anything to do with a criticism of the James Report as such: it is simply to say that it is out of this kind of atmosphere, this feeling of something not being right, that the Report has come. I think it is ingenious and brave of the Report not to have shirked the implications for higher education as a whole which are raised by the more specialised problems, urgent as they are, of teacher training. If 1 may briefly give my own experience in this, when I was hired by London University a few weeks before term was due to start I was asked if I should like to attend—it was quite voluntary—a conference run by the university's department of education on teaching techniques. This was a three-day conference, and we walked about, as one does now at conferences, with little name tags attached to various parts of our bodies, to try to get to know each other, and we sat through quite a lot of lecturing about the techniques of lecturing. The worst part of it was that we were supposed to give a three-minute lecturette on any subject, and I do not think that any form of public speaking has ever scared me quite so much as that. I cannot remember at all what I said or how it went, but at the end of it the instructor said, kindly but slightly reprovingly, that I should not exude so much breezy self-confidence, and that this might be rectified if I could learn to speak without folding my arms across my breast. Since then, I have not had any in-service remedial training or criticism, and I expect I am due for some. However, recently at University College, where I work, we have instituted a kind of "bull-session" between staff and the student body, in which we can answer criticism and learn from it. This pleases me very much, because when I was an undergraduate myself I happened to work on Isis magazine, at the time (I do not know if your Lordships remember) of the great furore of reviewing lectures, which brought the national Press (to our great glee. I might say) down about our ears.
My Lords, I should like to come to the Report. I have praised and mentioned its courage in tackling the wider issues of higher education, but your Lordships know what these are, and I am not going to take time to go into them this even-
158
ing. It seems to me that the Report is slightly too kind to the teaching profession's general obsessions with questions of status and the nomenclature of degrees. I think that here one must be a little indulgent towards the teaching profession. Your Lordships will know what happens in this House when we are engaged in Committee or debate about procedure. It is almost impossible to bring the discussion to an end; and the same is true of any vocal group of men engaged in talking their own professional "shop". At some point a guillotine is going to be far more urgently needed on the James Report than it is ever going to be needed on the European Economic Communities Bill.
One of the members of the James Committee, in an interesting piece in The Times Educational Supplement (which I understand, its not being Hansard, I can quote from) says:
"The Report outlines a new relationship—never exclusively defined—between universities and colleges of education, and examines alternative methods of awarding and recognising degrees and diplomas.
"In the volume of words already devoted to these two questions the English have once again demonstrated their unrivalled capacity for reducing every argument to the levels of status and snobbish recognition: the university 'problem' is not central, several solutions to it are offered in the Report, and even if the Government decides that the universities should be required to maintain the links in their present form within an inevitably changed system, all the rest of the key proposals still survive undamaged".
I am not myself uncritical of some of the rest of the key proposals, but I think that was a courageous and clear thing to be said by a member who signed the Report, and it needs attention.
My Lords, anyone who teaches in the humanities, at any level of higher education, is absorbed at the present time particularly about what the value of the piece of paper he gives to his students at the end of their careers is going to be, and what sort of job they are going to get. I must add my doubts to those already expressed by other noble Lords about whether the diploma of higher education is really going to suit employers. Lord James called for imaginative solutions to this problem. If the solution I am suggesting is imaginative, I must hasten to say that it does not come from my own imagination, but an imaginative idea at least twenty or thirty

159
years old, connected with Dr. Leavis. (I am glad, since the noble Lord, Lord Snow, has left the Chamber, that he is not here to tell me any nonsense I may be talking.) My Lords, if you remember the essence of the Dr. Leavis's case it is that the study of English, English studies in literature and communication, should provide a core of general humane education in our culture, similar to that of the Classics earlier on.
From Mr. David Frost down to the most humble Member of your Lordships' House we are all in the communications business and there are very few aspects of trying to negotiate the reefs and shoals of a pluralistic society which do not involve communication skills. I would argue for a programme roughly from "O" level up to diploma or degree or graduate level where English studies are required and not simply the historicist questions or questions of criticism but those of rhetoric and communication. I say this with some urgency for, although I am not myself a gadget-minded man, we seem at the moment to be on the verge of a major technical revolution and one which will hugely change the processes of teaching and self-teaching. I am referring to T.V. casettes, and the revolution of programmed learning. The knowledge that the teacher imparts will increasingly be packaged and the way in which he imparts it will therefore need more personal sensitivity and professional training than ever if the great opportunities offered by the new educational technologies are not to lead to sterile, mechanised dullness. The James Report is a little thin as to how greater communication skills might be given to teachers.
My last criticism of the James Report is that it seems to me—and I recognise how tailored it had to be to educational "shop"—to be too distant from considerations of subjects. The universities themselves are not guiltless and we have been well served recently in your Lordships' House by the debates on these questions. I unashamedly followed my boss, Lord Annan, when he talked about the Rothschild Report and defined himself as a producer/consumer man. I believe that our education has got to get a great deal more vocational if we are to continue improving the situation vis-à-vis employment. Absorption with
160
status and the nomenclature of degree-giving should be under-played at this time.
I come at the end to the question of cost. I have not engaged (nor have I the skill to do so) in a cost analysis of the James Report, but I am aware of the criticisms made by my noble friend Lady Young in this respect. I would say that while any teacher is greatly liable to be on the side of periods of in-service training, I doubt whether one needs a "term off" for this. This is controversial, so I should like to elaborate it a little. If your job conditions are good, if your pay is reasonable and if you are not struggling to survive, as we know many teachers are struggling to survive, it seems to me that you can keep pace not only with your subject but with changes in communication skills or techniques at the same time—and not only that you can do so but that you would very much want to. Therefore, it seems to me that we must put our energy towards attending to the general economics of education in its already parlous state and not add to the economic problems. In spite of this, I must end with very strong praise for the Report and the great interest and eloquence which it has generated. It is a long time since it was obligatory in your Lordships' House to make jokes in Latin, but we all know the tag, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. I am personally very happy to be in the hands of so able and lucid a custodian as the noble Lord, Lord James.
5.25 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, one of the hardships of being a member of the Government is that you are not free to say in public what you think about the work of your colleagues; that is, if you disagree to any extent. I am not querying this system, for collective responsibility must prevail; but I am bound to say that I took a very dim view indeed of the temporary aberration of my own Party in Government when it lent itself to the concept of the binary system. If the binary system in higher education is (in my judgment, anyway) undesirable, to have a three-tier system seems to me to be just so much worse. Among all those who have to be educated —for medicine, for the law, for architecture, for whatever you choose—to select the education of the teacher to be placed

161
"below the salt" seems to be something that we must avoid at all costs. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, who I see is in his place. If I understood him correctly, he intervened at one moment to ask: "Why not two years at university?" It seems to me—
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I did not go so far as that. That was not my motive in asking the noble Lord the question. I asked him why he did not call the diploma a degree, leaving for further reflection the question whether the degree should be validated by the universities or by the Coucil for Academic Awards.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful for that because it bears out what I am seeking to say: that we are all avoiding the stigmata of the training of the teacher appearing to be on a lower level than the training of other professions. I think that we should all wish to agree on that. Also, the teachers of the future are going to have a very different relationship with their pupils, whether they are teaching fiveyear-olds or post-graduates, than the teachers of the past. We are now in the transitional stage. The facilities available to teachers are going to be very different. The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, was talking about T.V. casettes. Of course we know in the old days of the loneliness of the teacher, of the classroom door closed. He may have had a book or two, but sometimes these were scarce. The child was completely at the mercy of the individual teacher who might be a superb teacher; but who might be lacking in many respects.
When we are considering how we are going to teach our teachers, what their relationship is going to be with the rest of the community and with their pupils, there are two important factors which must not be overlooked: first, that we are living in the age of mass media; and that the highest levels of learning over the fields of science and the arts and technology can be communicated through the mass media, through radio, television, films, casettes, just as nursery school education can be helped. The child going to school is now seeing more of television than of the teacher, for good or for evil; and the teacher becomes, in many respects, the leader of the discussion. We
162
must take all these things into consideration. The second factor is that teachers are faced now, in my judgment, with as profound an age of transition as we had in the days of Erasmus. Once again we are at a time when almost all the values in society are being questioned—and we know that the teachers are facing a special problem when dealing with a child from what we call the deprived home. But the majority of children are coming not from deprived homes but very much from questioning homes, and if the father in industry is saying that he is no longer going to be a cog in a machine, that he is going to participate, he is going to seek to understand and be consulted about the working of his industry and the working of his country, so too in the training of our teachers, they are going to have to know how to work with youngsters, with students of every age, who come in very much a questioning mood.
Because that is so, I am alarmed at the idea of the teacher being put almost into a kind of educational ghetto, and I do not think it makes it any easier to say that these two-year colleges would be open to others, even though they did not intend to teach. To be able during those years to mix freely, in parity of esteem, whether accepted into a university for a course or working in a community where there would be the facilities for libraries and for taking part in sports or debating societies—all the things that make up the life of the young—is essential. Surely the student teachers must be given the maximum encouragement and the maximum opportunity to mix with other students of their generation, whatever objectives they hope to reach in later years. So I am wholly opposed to the segregation of the teacher. I am wholly opposed to anything which lowers the status of the teacher. It is no good denying that things like status count a very great deal.
I would also venture to say that I am not convinced that it is necessary for a teacher to have a university degree in order to be a good teacher. Indeed, I think what matters is the standard of education once the teacher has been on the job—and not just for one year or two years but maybe for five or ten years. It is then that one begins to get the test of the quality and standard of

163
the teacher. I believe that those who seek to improve their qualifications ought to be given proper recognition and reward, financial and otherwise.
I listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, when she talked so eloquently and with such deep feeling about those who had been deprived of education. She mentioned a miner of 42 who had had no opportunities in his youth; but I wonder how many miners of 42 would be able to leave their jobs and go to college for two years? Who is going to keep the family in the meantime? Who is going to pay for it all? It is not just a case of tuition. The noble Baroness also talked about the housewife. Very often we have a woman of keen intelligence who has given a number of years when her children are young but who wants to qualify and go out into the world again. Certainly there may be some who would be able to leave their homes, leave their growing families or their grown-up families and go off to attend college—probably in another part of the country—for two years; and those who are in that favoured position, good luck to them! But one of the problems that I had to consider when I was asked to give some thought to this problem of higher education was how the highest levels of scholarship—not the second-best or the third-best—could be brought within the reach of many people who had not had opportunities earlier in their life; how that could be done without in any way debasing the standards of scholarship.
That was difficult, because one is always oppressed by people who say, "A little bit more adult education, just a little bit more, but not too much". I was wholly opposed to the concept of facing the future by merely a secondary patchwork job which would offer the crumbs from the rich man's table, in the academic sense. There are Members of your Lordships' House who know that one thing on which I was inflexible was that if we were going to give opportunities to those who had been deprived or those who wanted to improve their standards, it must not be the second-best; it had to be impeccable in its academic standards. That is why the Open University is an independent, autonomous university. That is why its students have
164
the security that they are not being given a level of teaching less than that of "Oxbridge" or the red brick universities or anything else. What I am saying now is not just an idle hope but is already being demonstrated, even at this very early stage.
How does this apply to the training of our teachers? It means that a teacher, perhaps more than anyone, needs refreshment. We ask a very great deal of a teacher. Many teachers finished with their training a generation and more ago and are now being asked to teach subjects they themselves were never taught. They have to know how to keep up-to-date, particularly in teaching scientific and technical subjects where I am told the textbooks are changing almost every week. This is the problem that has to be faced. What we have tried to do—and this is the whole concept of the Open University—is to marry the highest levels of scholarship with the mass media, but at the same time to give the teacher an opportunity to meet with others in the community, because there are the local study centres where those who are qualified in one particular subject meet together. One can have the young plumber, the young civil servant, the young engineer, the young bus driver, the young teacher and the older teacher mixing together. This is good for them, not only in an academic sense but also certainly in a social sense. Surely that is the kind of broad education in the broad social context which we want for our teachers.
Now one thing more. My noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones was asked, "What about the good old system of getting your ordinary university degree?" Certainly in Scotland we got our first degree by taking seven subjects—three, two and two —and built up to a degree. Once again the Open University does a great deal for the teacher because it is not necessary to go through to a full degree. One can take one credit for one year in one subject and then go on. Therefore I suggest that the last thing I had in mind when planning the Open University was that this was a way of getting higher education on the cheap. I would not have lent myself to that, if by "cheap" it meant it was going to be an inferior substitute. If we can use the mass media and if we can use the technical resources of modern times to bring the best in

165
any field of education within the reach of literally thousands—and it will be going on to hundreds of thousands before long—whether they want it for the enrichment of their private lives or whether they want it to promote their capacities in a particular job, so much the better.
I just want to say one thing more and I hope I will be forgiven if I seem to be leaving the subject slightly, but since I have been talking about the facilities of the Open University in relation to the training and refreshment of teachers at later stages I would also say this: I hope we have got beyond the stage where there are people talking about the Open University as if it were a working man's university, a rich man's university, a black man's university and a white man's university, because that was never its philosophy. Its philosophy was not to insult people who were poor or people who were in any way deprived by offering them something that was other than the best. So it was in the very nature of things that in the first year teachers, more than anyone, have taken advantage of its facilities. I hope they will go on taking advantage of its facilities.
I would just say in conclusion that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord James, does not think that I have been ungrateful for all the hard work that has been done. There are many things I like in his Report. I like the flexibility. I like the way the Report stresses the fact that some training in teaching and a good teacher is better than merely the highest academic qualifications. There is much in the Report that I commend. I am grateful for the immense amount of work put into it. But I say that I am wholly opposed to the three-tier system in higher education. I would be opposed to it if it had been doctors, lawyers or politicians who had been segregated; but it is even worse that those whom we are going to entrust with the training of our teachers should be put in this dubious position.
5.40 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I would not go all the way with the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, in his prognostication of the probable length of time of the debate on the Report that we are considering this evening. It is a Report which raises issues of far-reaching importance. They need to be discussed; indeed, I had thought that perhaps this
166
afternoon's debate, for which we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, would be in the nature of a curtain-raiser, but not one that was going to last for the next ten years. But as we are in the process, as I understand it, of contributing to the evaluation of the Report, it may be helpful if something is said from these Benches, particularly in regard to the position of the voluntary colleges of education in which the Churches have had a stake from the very beginning; in fact, some 30 years before the State ever thought about training teachers. They have contributed at considerable expense in the expansion of teacher education following on the McNair Report.
Your Lordships may well be aware that, of the 142 general colleges of education, 25 are provided by the Church of England; 2 by the Church in Wales; 15 by the Roman Catholic Church and 8 by other voluntary bodies. We have gone on doing that, and we hope to go on sharing in this enterprise of teacher education, because we are bold enough to think that the existence of these colleges as communities, sharpened and judged by Christian insight, contributes to the health of the whole national system of education, and because we are concerned not with religious education alone, important though that is, but also with education in the widest sense.
Our initial response to this important Report is to say that we want to cooperate so far as we can in enabling teacher education to take place in what I think the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, called a richer context. I think that I speak at least for the whole of the Church of England Board of Education when I welcome the way in which the Report seeks to make provision for divers needs in ways which are realistic and seem to be practically possible, whatever may be the financial implications.
It is not easy to devise a scheme that takes into account the problem of providing an education appropriate in the closing years of the 20th century to those who are going to teach the very young, and to those who are going to teach young men and women who in law are already adults. I welcome the way in which the task has been approached, and I welcome, too, as I believe we must all

167
do, the desire to give all teachers equality of status. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who said that we have to get rid of the idea that a person who was going to teach the lower forms, or the infant classes, did not have to be quite so well educated as someone who was going to teach the sixth form. Having spent a great deal of my time as a teacher, I can only say that I would much sooner teach the sixth form than put my nose inside the classroom of the 7-year-olds because I have not been educated to their standards. This is an important consideration which I believe that the James Report tries to meet, and I am sure that it is right to make it possible for would-be teachers to embark on higher education without a prior commitment to teaching. Nevertheless, I share some of the hesitations and doubts that have been expressed in your Lordships' House.
My Lords, I wonder whether there is not a danger that the diploma in higher education will not have real validity outside the teaching profession. It would be disastrous if it were only something which you took if you were going to be a teacher, and if nobody else bothered to take it because it did not seem to carry much weight or was a piece of paper that was not worth having. My mind had even toyed with the idea of the various ways in which one might meet this danger. I personally, though I speak entirely as an individual, should like to think that some of the theological colleges might very well take the diploma in higher education as part of their whole system and of their curriculum. But will the universities be willing to take it into their system? Will they accept a diploma given in a college of education as exempting students from part of a degree course? There are many other questions of this kind to which I suppose it is impossible to expect an answer at this stage, because one cannot say what all the universities will do. One hopes that sufficient will be enlightened enough to see the importance of the contribution that such students can make.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, may I ask the right reverend Prelate whether he is aware that in many parts of the university world the merits of a two-year
168
degree are being very energetically discussed at the present time?
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for reminding me of that. I did know it, and it is a pointer in a direction which is very welcome.
Secondly, is there not a danger of fragmentation, the very fragmentation which the Committee seem to be trying to avoid, if cycle one, cycle two first-year and cycle two second-year, can be taken in different institutions? Of course there must be flexibility and the possibility of movement, but I should be rather happier with this part of the proposals if I felt that a great majority of teachers would have been in the same institution for at least cycle one and the first year of cycle two. I cannot see how a small college confined to cycle one can develop as it must do for the scheme to be the success that one would want it to be. On the question of organisation I still think—and here I have to say that the Church of England Board of Education was very strong in its opinion expressed to Lord James's Committee—that the future of the colleges should lie more with the universities and not in isolation from the universities. I hope that if the universities were willing perhaps to accept a greater degree of responsibility, the rather elaborate structure of proposed Regional Councils and National Councils could be looked at again.
There is another point, my Lords. The Committee's proposals have some serious implications for the voluntary colleges, for if they were adopted, they would, in some respects, change the character of these colleges. The Committee recognised this in Chapter 5 where they say:
"It is to be hoped that the voluntary bodies would agree to a widening of functions for their colleges so that all could share in the same advance and play their full part in the new system. Financial arrangements for these colleges would continue as at present."
There is a bit of a sting in that last sentence to which I will refer in a moment. For the voluntary bodies to agree, as Lord James and his colleagues hope that they will, will cause them a certain amount of heart searching. They found the various colleges for the purpose of training teachers. Under the proposals, the colleges would be taking part in

169
higher education in general of others than those who were going to be teachers.
Now I do not think that anybody in this century would seriously advocate that we should establish an Anglican university in this country. Some years ago the Church of England decided in principle that it would not have Anglican halls of residence in any of the newer universities because it was not felt right, as it were, to detach and isolate those who were of a particular religious affiliation from the rest of the university or of society. If these colleges develop into liberal arts colleges (and this is really what I believe is intended) the Churches will have to ask themselves what degree of control such as they have at present do they want to carry on into a system which I would myself in principle support without any hesitation. I believe that the widening of the context within which would-be teachers receive their own general education could do nothing but good for them and might do a great deal of good for some other people. In fact we—and I speak for the Church colleges—have already been moving rather in this direction in that two of them now have youth work as a main course and several others offer it as a subsidiary course, quite clearly hoping that they will be training future youth officers alongside future youth leaders, who should be allied with each other in their professional work.
I should like to see that work go on from there to a much wider spread; but, as I said, there will be some questions of principle for the Churches and if a college has to be enlarged to enable it to take in a wider variety of students and if the existing financial arrangements remain unchanged, as Lord James suggests, there will be a few more headaches for those who are responsible for organising and financing the voluntary colleges. Our hope is that at any rate we shall be able to share and co-operate in the working out of the working drawings of what I may perhaps call "the architect's plan" that Lord James has given us. There is certainly one area in which we should like wholeheartedly to co-operate: the Report suggests that there should be rationalisation of the special subjects offered by the various colleges. This is obviously sound and right. We would hope that in every college perhaps one of the special subject options would
170
be religious education; but certainly the Church colleges would be ready to make the fullest possible provision so that, in the words of the Reports, they would be "centres of excellence".
My Lords, there is a lot still to be argued out over these proposals. They are imaginative, far-reaching and extremely important. They are timely; they raise problems for the voluntary bodies. But I think I am quite safe in saying that we would want to associate ourselves to the fullest possible extent in the planning and implementation of a policy for the future which aimed at giving more to the children who are our future.
5.54 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, some of your Lordships have been declaring an interest during the debate, and perhaps I should start by admitting that I was a university teacher myself for about the same length of time as my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones; that is, 40 years. I should say also that—perhaps this is even more important—I have been very closely associated with the Association of University Teachers for a very long time. This Association, which has over 22,000 members, represents the great majority of university teachers in this country and in Scotland. I mention this because it is the sort of topic which is of very deep concern to the A.U.T.; and although I am no longer actively engaged in its operations I am still closely in touch with it and have seen all the papers relevant to this particular subject, including the draft of a letter to the Secretary of State, in which the Association expresses how disturbed it is by some of the major proposals in the James Report. Although I do not agree with everything in that letter, I find myself very much in sympathy with it as a whole.
We seem to live in an age of controversial reports and this Report, which we all call the James Report, of course is at least as controversial as the one we were discussing very recently and which is associated with the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. On the whole, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that this Report is couched in more persuasive language, and as a result I think it has acquired

171
a substantial number of adherents. The noble Lord, Lord James, and his colleagues on the Committee played their hand very skilfully.
In all these Reports there is a good deal of what one can accept—and of course one does not want to talk too much about what one agrees with—and naturally there are parts of it which one may feel doubtful about or which call for one's attention. What Lord James calls his third cycle has been pretty well accepted by everybody, and certainly I would not want to strike a discordant note in relation to that because I am very much in agreement with it. I agree also that it is perhaps more important for teachers to have what one might call this "refresher" than any other group. The object obviously is to give opportunities for refreshment and refurbishing to those who have been engaged for a substantial number of years in teaching. That of course was found necessary in the universities long ago. I think that the sabbatical term was introduced into this country by my old chief Lord Beveridge, when he was Director of the London School of Economics. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, is present, and perhaps he will show his dissent if I am wrong about this, but I think it was Lord Beveridge (who had a wonderful capacity for finding money in odd places) who introduced the sabbatical year and this was afterwards taken up by the U.G.C. and is now generally granted in all the English and Scottish universities. It has been a splendid thing. I mention this because the teacher in a school is even more in need of this kind of refresher than is the university teacher. He is more isolated and is not moving among colleagues in the university world. Not only the techniques referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, but also the content of the actual subjects, especially of scientific subjects, have changed more, as the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, indicated, over the last few years than at any other period in history. Therefore this sort of refreshment is particularly necessary and indeed quite essential. It seems strange to me that the school-teaching profession have been allowed to go without it for so long. It is high time this was put right.
172
As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, indicated, it is going to cost a lot of money and if at the end of it all the Secretary of State finds that there is not enough money to carry out all the recommendations of the James Report then I hope that this is the one she will fix on and spend her money to the last shilling.
I should like to quote from a later chapter right at the very end, one that I think has not been referred to this afternoon. It is the summary chapter, in which the Committee emphasise this even more strongly than in the chapter which deals with the subject, and they say this:
"To commit energies and resources to a development of the third cycle along the lines envisaged here would be the quickest, most effective and most economical way of improving the quality of education in the schools and colleges and of raising the standards, morale and status of the teaching profession."
That is a very strong statement and it shows that they put this before everything else. All the proposals for diplomas and semi-university courses come after this third cycle proposal. That is quite right. If the Committee had done nothing else, that would have justified its existence.
There has been a great deal of criticism, and many of the critics have suggested that there was no need to have a Committee going into the problems at all. I do not agree with this. Although there has been a great deal of committee work on education over these past years, very little of it has dealt with the subject of educating and training the teachers. The Robbins Report deals with it, and the McNair Report deals with it, but most of the other work has been on education generally. In any case, it is very valuable to have, once in a generation at least, a number of knowledgeable and shrewd minds looking at a national institution. This is emphatically so in the case of teaching in schools. For that reason I particularly welcome that this Committee should have been appointed and got to work; I agree profoundly with a great deal of what appears in its Report, and disagree equally profoundly with others of its proposals.
I do not think there is any need to dot the i's and cross the t's in regard to the third cycle. I should like to turn to the main proposal, because although

173
the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, puts the third cycle first in the argument, I do not agree that that is logical. What he was doing was to play his best card first. It certainly makes a very good introduction to the Report and puts one into a favourable humour for being converted to some of his other rather more heretical views. He may well have thought, as he knows perfectly well, that money is always short and that if he put this first it would attract the attention of the powers-that-be and the money might be forthcoming for what he and his colleagues regard as the most important of all the proposals. You do not begin to have this in-training until first of all you have educated your teacher and then trained him in the technique, so that logically it comes last; and until you have that on a sound basis you cannot do very much about your third cycle. It is here that I begin to find myself in difficulties with the James Report. The weakness of the Report seems to stem from a failure on the part of the Committee to think through at the very beginning to the fundamental requirements for teaching in schools. What are these? The Report does not indicate what they are. They plunge in medics res.
The situation in the teaching profession is very similar to the situation in other professions, or most of them. I was a law teacher and have a foot in both camps in a way, as a teacher and a lawyer. In the legal profession we have been going through a similar heart-searching. We have had a splendid Report from Mr. Justice Ormrod, in which all the university law schools have been very much concerned. Not only among the lawyers but also among the doctors and the other professional people it is now generally agreed that the best introduction to a profession is a thoroughly sound education in that particular academic branch of knowledge. After that you go on to the techniques which are required by every professional man if he is to put his knowledge at the service of his fellow citizens and thereby to earn his living. It is very much the same in education, but it is even more important to have the preliminary education in a university, because the teacher in a school is concerned first of all to have a good and, indeed, deep knowledge, if possible, of some particular branch of academic knowledge.
174
But that is not sufficient because in his case he should have also a good grasp of the theoretical background of education which is a big subject in itself.
The idea that a lawyer should have at least three years in the university is now accepted, whereas that a man or woman who is to teach in a school need have only two years at a teacher training college seems to me absurd on the face of it. It needs an extra year, rather than a year less. I am very disturbed that the James Report seems to be uninterested in what one might call the theory of teaching, and wants to hustle the man or woman on into the practical techniques before anything has been done on those lines. This is on the basis that until the would-be teacher has been working in a school he or she will not have the capacity to understand the theoretical principles on which the whole matter is based. This is the reason why I and my colleagues in the A.U.T. are very much opposed to this proposal for a two-year academic course, to be followed by a diploma of higher education. This is not only for people who are going to teach in the schools; it is for anybody who wants to go in for it. There are people in the universities who seem to think that two years is a sufficient period to study a big branch of knowledge. There are heresies about all over the place, and this is one of the most obvious of them. England is almost the only country in Europe where three years is regarded as sufficient to study a subject like history or mathematics, or any of the other subjects studied in universities. In other places, four or five years are regarded as the necessary time for this study, and to try to reduce the period to two years strikes me as being worse than disturbing—indeed, very dangerous.
I have been in the United States, and heard a good deal about their arts colleges. That is something which is entirely different. It seems to me it is a fundamental mistake in this Report to mix up these two things. If we are to have an arts college, as was referred to by the right reverend Prelate in his speech, then let us have an arts college as such, and not mix it up with the education and training of teachers. Let us not divert them back from the universities to which of recent years there has been a strong trend. My noble

175
friend Lady Phillips made this point. Over the past years the trend to take degrees from the teacher training colleges has been growing stronger and stronger, and to-day a substantial proportion of all those who enter the colleges are taking degrees. It seems to me that one of the weaknesses of the James Report is that it would reverse or might very well have the effect of reversing this very important trend.
Of course if you look at this matter from a practical point of view there are only too many people looking for soft options. It is astonishing how clever students are at finding them even within a degree course in any particular subject. One or two Papers in the law course at the University of London had the reputation of being soft options, and it is interesting to notice how the weaker students put themselves down for these subjects. They may not be good as students of law but they are often very shrewd and intelligent; and this, I am afraid, would attract many such people, especially the tuft-hunting type who thinks, "It is doubtful whether I am ever going to get a degree but, after all, a diploma in higher education is a nice sort of document and I would have a good chance if I can pick up one of those". Students are very interested in these pieces of paper. I am not blaming them; it is very natural that they should be; but I do not think the authorities should go out of their way to provide them with easy routes to get round the discipline—and discipline it is—of going through the necessary study and work which is involved in obtaining a degree at a university.
I could say a great deal more about this, but as it is getting late I will not take up your Lordships' time but will turn to my final point, that of the position which the James Report allocates to the universities in this matter. It is a very slender one. I think it is not too much to say—and this is certainly the view which is taken by my colleagues in the A.U.T. and has been referred to by more than one speaker this afternoon —that it looks, on the face of it, as if a cheap way was being found round what would obviously be a much more expensive approach to the teachers' profession; that is, a two years' course instead of the full course in a university.
176
I agree very much with what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and also by the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, that people who are going to be responsible for "half our future" should be given by their fellow citizens the highest kind of education which the State can provide. Yet the effect of the James proposals would, I think—and this is certainly what disturbs my colleagues in the A.U.T.—be to cut the colleges of education out of the university world and make them second class citizens. It is all right for the noble Lord, Lord James, to say that there is no reason why the university should not be brought in and help, but it is quite obvious from his own Report that he and his colleagues realise that this is a "radical innovation". They actually use the expression "radical innovation" at one point in the Report. Chapter 5, paragraph 14, reads:
"Although all universities would therefore be involved in the new system, it would be disingenuous to deny that what is being proposed must represent a radical change in the present relationship …".
"A radical change in the present relationship" I think is a very serious thing. As I have said, there has been a strong trend over the last ten years towards university education in the teacher training colleges. That trend is in grave danger of being reversed. That is the most disturbing aspect of all.
I listened to what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said about the out-of-work miner. The Workers' Educational Association provides for this sort of case at a pretty high level. We can have the arts colleges. But we should not try and mix up completely different things. When the noble Baroness, Lady Lee, referred to the University of the Air, she was indicating her view that this is completely different, too. The Report attempts to justify this on the ground that the universities have been falling down on their job. But they have not really been given this job. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and his Committee tried, without success, to persuade the Secretary of State that the universities should have this job.
The reason why the results of the McNair Committee were so successful was that for the first time they brought the universities into the field of teacher education and training. It is ironical that in the James Report the success of the

177
McNair arrangements is referred to with a rather patronising pat on the back, and it goes on to say, "Well, of course, this is so successful that it is now out of date". "Nothing fails like success", was what I thought to myself when I read this paragraph. It is perhaps worth reading it to your Lordships. It reads:
"The present system"—
that is the A.T.O., the McNair system—
"is at fault because it has been outdated not least by the consequences of its own success."
Well, as the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, argued so cogently, if it has in fact been such a success there is obviously no great urgency to bring it to an end; and I hope with her that the Secretary of State will think long and not be stampeded by the suggestion which appears from time to time in rather exaggerated language in the Report that very urgent action ought to be taken at once.
This is a matter which is going to affect "half our future" for a very long time and I am sure that your Lordships would all agree with me that it should be thought out very carefully and chewed over very thoroughly before a decision is reached.
6.19 p.m.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, this is a rather precious occasion for me. The noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, was a pupil of mine 50 years ago. I hasten to add that any success he has attained in his brilliant career is due to the other masters at the school at which he was educated. I warmly congratulate the noble Lord and his Committee on so important a Report, admirable in so many ways, but I wish to criticise one of its most serious suggestions. My Lords, I have always been troubled by dichotomies in education. To me, education is one; it is a unity. No part is less important than another. When we remember that all our university graduates, all the members of the professions, all other leaders of society—or nearly all of them—begin their education in the nation's primary schools, in the nation's infant schools, we realise just what that unity means. It is in the primary school that the twig is bent.
To me, those who look after the seed-corn are as important as those who teach the high-flyers at university. I am therefore glad that the Report pays tribute
178
to the work of those who train our teachers. They have had some very difficult tasks to face since the war: the raising of the school-leaving age; the complex demands of modern society; the tapping since World War II of ability which we did not believe was there in the 70 per cent. of our schoolchildren who received only elementary school education before the 1945 Act; the emergence of new teaching techniques and new subjects; the impact of a tremendously dynamic technological age; the need to preserve moral and spiritual values in a mass culture which threatens them; and now our most recent national decision to educate every child in the land, however handicapped mentally or physically it may be. All these factors have presented tremendous challenges to the training colleges of this country. On top of it, they were faced with the sheer physical task of providing accommodation and instruction for a vast expansion of the teaching profession. And, on top of that, they had to meet the splendid reform which not so long ago secured for all our teachers for the first time a three-year course at training college, instead of a two-year course. The Report pays tribute to the teachers of the colleges of education for the way they have met these problems, and indeed (and it has been quoted just now) strangely says that the college of education system is out-dated by the very consequences of its own success. Any criticism that the Report makes it says it makes of the system, and certainly not of the skill and the spirit of those who operate it.
During some 50 years, 30 of them as a teacher, 20 as a member of an education committee, almost as many as a visitor to the colleges and the universities of this country, I have noted two features. One is the steady improvement in the quality of the work done in our colleges of education. I have found in them no uncertainty of aims; a steady improvement in the academic and educational qualifications of those who teach there, and indeed a striking increase in the academic qualification of those who enter there—two "A"-levels are becoming almost the norm to get into a college of education; and especially into our colleges of education in my lifetime the infusion, as into Her Majesty's Inspectorate, of men and women who have

179
taught themselves before they go to colleges to teach the teachers. The other feature I have noted is the steady improvement and steady development of good relations between the colleges and the universities, both formally and informally, and all are very valuable.
The Robbins Report welcomed these contacts and these associations between colleges and universities and hoped indeed that they would develop much more rapidly than they have done. But this Report, in the minds of many of us, seems to move away from what I believe is an inevitable march of the colleges of education towards parity with the universities. It is true that the Report, when it ominously calls for "major modifications" and "a radical change" in the relationship between colleges and universities, also says that it would be folly to dissociate universities from teacher education; but that I take to mean that they intend to preserve the Diploma of Education at universities for graduate students. The Report also says that the reason for the proposed change is the undoubted advance in quality and status of the colleges—a curious argument. But it concedes that there has been some enhancement of prestige by the association of colleges with universities. I quote:
"The colleges rightly see themselves as places of learning … the universities are the highest manifestation of the life of learning … it seems right for the colleges to work under the auspices and ultimately under the guidance of the universities."
But having set out this argument, it knocks it down at once and comes down on the side of two separate institutions, one for teacher education and one for university education.
The old academic pride, which some of us combated years ago when we were making claims for the status of colleges of technology, seems to be still with us. The Report indeed says that some colleges have striven for what it calls "the wrong kind of excellence", and uses the weirdest of expressions when it criticises the colleges of education for having become too academic, adding, "in the bad sense of that word". I seem to remember a similar fear 25 years ago, when we gave secondary education to all our children, that the secondary modern schools would copy the grammar schools, when the truth was that what was good in the grammar
180
schools we wanted for all our children in all our secondary schools. And the notable achievements both of secondary modern schools and of comprehensive schools, and indeed the grammar schools, go to show that this education is one and is dynamic. All that is good in the universities we seek for the colleges of education, and the universities cannot lose in the process.
My Lords, if I may digress for a moment from my main theme. I note with interest the Report's criticism of the tendency of the colleges of education to "overteach"—the word is a good one. When I taught sixth forms many years ago I told my pupils that once they had left the sixth form and gone to university the intensive teaching would be over. At the university, while lectures are important, students would have to stand on their own two feet, if I may coin a phrase. The university student succeeds less by the work of the faculty than by the use of his own faculties. But as I have been to colleges of education recently I have found there too the students working independently of their tutors, realising, as a good university student does, that it is his business to get the most he can out of his college or university education.
The aim of the teaching profession, the policy of the National Union of Teachers, of which I am privileged to be an honorary member, has been throughout this century to press for the goal of a graduate profession—every teacher a graduate. They fear that this Report could be a step back, rather than a moving forward towards the fusion of places of learning. They fear that education for teaching, surely about the most important education of all, is going to be given a second place, or even a third place, in the hierarchical structure of further education. So I support the view expressed in the Minority Report—or, rather, what is called a Note of Extension, since its distinguished signatories accept, as I do, most of the rest of the Report. They want the association of colleges and universities to continue and to expand. They claim that this view has the support of the majority of the teaching profession. I gather from the noble Lord who spoke last that it had the support of the Association of University Teachers. I can certainly confirm that it is true about the teachers in our schools.

181
The Minority Report wants the colleges themselves to develop in the direction they have already begun, and provide four-year courses leading to a degree. They say, in what I think is the most magnificent sentence in the Report:
"We think it entirely feasible that within a decade all intending teachers should have the opportunity to pursue higher education courses of the same length, sufficient to attain that breath of knowledge, creative skill and awareness which is needed for the teaching of children of all ages."
I do not myself believe that the Report can prevent such a development, even if it wishes to, which I doubt. I believe that ultimately, because of the dynamic nature of the colleges themselves, they too will become what the Report, speaking of the universities, calls "the highest manifestation of the life of learning".
Having said that, my Lords, I agree with almost everything else in the Report, especially the vision of a third stage for every teacher, with a return every seven years to research into new developments in his profession; also the prospect of a second cycle in which, as the young teacher embarks on the most precious of all vocations, he is guided and encouraged by older members of the profession. Turning these two proposals into reality will undoubtedly enhance the quality of the profession. But implementing them will demand the fullest consultation and cooperation between the Government and the teachers themselves.
The Report emphasises the need for specialised teaching—I would say especially into methods of teaching the backward and the mentally or physically handicapped. I am glad that it emphasises the importance of research and practice in the teaching of reading, and especially the teaching to read of children who, for any reasons, find this highly sophisticated accomplishment, with our most difficult orthography in the world, exceedingly difficult. I hope that much more attention will be paid to the teaching of teachers to teach to read. Incidentally, my Lords, I welcome the tribute to Plato. I have often thought that the Republic might be part of the basic course not only of every student in every college of education but of all university students too.
The Report rightly points out that its great proposals—especially those of the
182
important chapter on the third cycle—can be carried out only with a much more generous staffing ratio. It hopes that generous ratio will be provided as we now reach the peak of teacher supply. There will be difficulties in carrying out the idea of the third cycle in the smallest schools, especially in schools with two or three teachers. My Lords, I believe this Report is a landmark in the development of teacher training. It is the beginning of a new epoch. As one who admires just how much the colleges of education have achieved since the War—and indeed their predecessors before them—I was glad to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London pay a tribute to the work of the Church training colleges for over a century. The old training colleges did a wonderful job. I am confident that the colleges will meet the challenges of this Report, but the fears that I have expressed are real ones. They will have to be sorted out in consultation both with the teachers in the schools and the teachers in the colleges and with the teachers in the universities. My Lords, it gives me special pleasure, both for personal reasons and because of a lifelong interest in education, to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme.
6.34 p.m.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, this has been a good and well-informed debate and we are all, I am sure, grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this very important Report. At the beginning of the debate I thought, and I know that some of my noble friends thought, that it was probably too early to have a debate on this subject so soon after the publication of the Report. But I can see that there is some force in what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said: that perhaps it is as well to let the Government know our point of view at the beginning rather than when the whole thing is a fait accotnpli.
We have been fortunate this afternoon to hear the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme. I know from past experiences in meetings with him that he is a very persuasive speaker; but he knows, too, that he is sometimes not sufficiently persuasive for me to accept all his points

183
of view, and I am sorry to say that to-day his speech did not altogether allay my fears of the outcome of this Report—indeed, in some respects it even increased them. The Report has been completed speedily enough, and I am sure that we all pay tribute to the enormous amount of work that this must have entailed for the members of the Committee. Sometimes Royal Commissions and Committees of Inquiry take so long in publishing their Reports that they are overtaken by events, but this one was produced very speedily. I have a feeling that there was pressure from the Government on the James Committee to produce this Report very quickly, and I do not blame them for acceding to that request. But perhaps the Report would have been a little better if a slightly longer time had been taken.
First, I should like to say something about the presentation of the Report. I agreed with my noble friend Lady Gaitskell when she said that she found the Report rather difficult to read and to understand because it seems to have been written, as it were, back to front, with the third cycle before the second, and the second before the first; and it did not help matters when, in describing cycle three, it referred to things in cycles two and one which were first, chronologically speaking, but which the reader had not yet read.
My second criticism of the presentation is that the Report lacks facts and background information which many of us would have liked to see included. Reports of this kind usually contain valuable information, but on page 2 of the Report in paragraph 1.5 we find the statement that it,
"does not include the statistical and factual information already available in the reports of the Select Committee and the A.T.O.s".
I do not want masses of statistics, but I believe that the Report would have been better had it contained some background and factual information. Apart from the tables of R.C.C.D.E. areas, which are not particularly interesting, the only figures we get are in Appendix 5, and they are very scanty. My third general criticism of the Report is that it has not faced up to the practical problem resulting from the policies in the Report. There are some parts of the Report with which
184
I wholeheartedly agree, but I recognise that if these are carried out there will be practical problems and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I feel that perhaps we ought to have heard more, not only of how the whole thing is to be financed but also of some of the very practical problems that implementation of the Report would mean for the colleges and the schools.
Cycle three has received universal welcome. A great deal of in-service training takes place now, but it varies and is spasmodic. I finished teaching in 1945 and went back to the classroom as a Minister in 1967, with only occasional visits in between. In 1967 I found in the schools a completely different world from the one I had left in 1945. There had been a veritable classroom revolution, especially in our primary schools. Indeed, in some schools there are no classrooms at all, and I must say that I felt in need of some in-service training in order to talk intelligently to the teachers I was visiting. But it says much for the adaptability of teachers that they have taken these changes in their stride.
This is due to various factors. It is due to a certain amount of in-service training; it is due to the Inspectorate; it is due to the efforts of the organisers of local authorities; it is due to the influence of the schools council (which has not been mentioned to-day) and to the initiative and hard work of the teachers. But, my Lords, it is a sobering thought that many teachers who were in school in 1945 when I left are still there to-day and have probably never had any absence from school for in-service training. Some, no doubt, have visited, in their own time, teacher centres which have been doing valuable work. The school life of someone who starts teaching at the age of just over 20 could be 40 years, yet it is possible for such a person to spend the whole of this time in school without release for further training. So I welcome these proposals, and I should like to go further with regard to cycle three. I should like eventually a sabbatical year for teachers, not just to enable them to become more proficient in teaching but to encourage them to get out into the world. Like the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I sometimes think it is a great pity that teachers go from school to college and from college to school,

185
with no other experience of working in the world.
My Lords, we must look here at the practical considerations of what is being proposed. It is proposed that all teachers should have a period of one term in seven years out of school, and eventually one term in five years. The Report calculates that this would mean 3 per cent. of the teaching force out of the classroom at any one time. Since the teaching force in the country is nearly 400,000, I calculate that this means that 12,000 teachers would be out of the classroom on in-service training at any one time. This is one of the facts we must face—and I shall come back to this later. It is proposed that this period away from school should be an entitlement and written into the contract of the teacher. I agree with those who to-day have said that it ought also to be the other way round, and that it ought to be written into the contract that the teacher should be willing to undertake this in-service training. I should like to see it done in this way.
Now I come to cycle two, the first year of which is practical experience of teaching and theory of education based in a professional institution, and the second year is a year partly in school and partly out of school as a licensed teacher. I am not quite clear what the status of the licensed teacher is to be. Will such teachers be part of the teaching force, or will they be regarded as a kind of student? They will be out of school for one-fifth of the time. They will be paid as teachers, though not qualified, and they will have advice from experienced colleagues. As my noble friend Lord Maybray-King has just said, there is going to be very great difficulty in small schools, the smaller schools with a teaching force of a headmistress and probably only two assistants. If the licensed teacher is regarded as part of the teaching force of that school, there will be a very great practical problem, but Lord James, when he spoke envisaged that these teachers might all be put into the bigger schools. I have calculated that by the mid-'seventies under these proposals there will be some 35,000 to 40,000 licensed teachers in the schools. If we are going to put those in all the large schools it could mean, for example, that in a large comprehensive school with
186
a staff of 60 some six or eight would be licensed teachers; and again I see great practical difficulties. They can probably be overcome, but I do not think the Report has really faced up to the difficulties of what is proposed.
I find it very difficult to discuss the second cycle in isolation because that is only relevant if the first cycle is accepted; so we must discuss them both together. The whole basis of this Report is that the decision to become a teacher will not be taken until the end of the first cycle and the acquisition of the Diploma of higher education. This is where I personally think that the Report is fundamentally wrong. The first cycle is to be completely divorced from the second and third cycles. It is true that in paragraph 4.13—and again Lord James referred to this—it is mentioned that some students could, if they wished, in the first cycle study subjects which might be of use to them in teaching. But it is also stressed throughout the Report that the diploma could be taken by anyone completely divorced from teaching. I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones on this point. I believe that a case can be made out for a diploma in higher education. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made a case for some kind of diploma which is perhaps not quite a degree. But where I part company from the Report is that this diploma is tied completely to teacher training. Teacher training is something quite different, and I think it is completely wrong to suggest that all teacher training should be put into this one basket of the diploma in higher education. I think the two things are something quite distinct and quite apart. The 1944 Education Act created a dual system of secondary education, and there is also a dual system of teacher training. This Report accentuates the divisions, and I think even makes matters worse.
The noble Lord, Lord James, said to day, and I agree with him wholeheartedly, that it was wrong for somebody with a university degree to be preferred to a well trained person without one. Of course it is wrong, but it happens. I read in the newspaper only last week of the headmaster of a big secondary school that was to become comprehensive who could not even be considered for headmaster of the comprehensive school because the

187
local authority in that area had a rule that only university graduates could be heads of comprehensive schools. I believe that this practice will continue if this Report is accepted. We are not getting rid of the divisiveness in teacher training, and perhaps are going to make it worse.
There are also arguments in the Report that a student ought not to be pressurised into teaching but ought to be able to keep the option open and not make up his mind at 18. I am against early specialisation in schools, but I think this is taking things a little too far. I know that I might not carry all my noble friends with me in this, but I believe it is not unreasonable to expect adults, as they are now at 18, who are going on to higher education to have some idea of what they intend to do. I know that some students enter universities without a thought of what they are going to do, but this argument about teaching is not applied to other professions. It is not applied to doctors, it is not applied to lawyers. Intending doctors enter a medical school and they study to be a doctor from the word "Go" in the universities. Is it because teaching is regarded as a sort of last resort? Is it that we still have hanging about us the old adage that "Those who can, do; and those who cannot, teach? One of the most revealing sentences in the whole of this Report is on page 68, paragraph 7, when it talks about students being "trapped into teaching". I do not think anybody would ever say that a doctor had been trapped into medicine or that a lawyer had been trapped into training for the legal profession. This is an attitude to teaching which I deplore.
It is argued in the Report that some will take the diploma not intending to teach but then become attracted to teaching. Of course this would be a good idea, and it may be so. But the implication in the Report is that this will increase the teaching force. But this is completely naĩve and just not true. Where will the students study for the diploma? They will study chiefly in the colleges of education, which are now full with intending teachers. So unless the training facilities in colleges of education, in universities and polytechnics are greatly expanded, this Report will reduce the supply of teachers because, as I said,
188
places in colleges of education will be filled by people who are not going to be teachers. It will reduce the supply of teachers because of the in-service training, and it will reduce the supply of teachers because of the year's licensed teachers. I am not saying that I am against these things, but we have to look at the implications of implementing them.
The supply of teachers has increased rapidly in the last decade. The total number in training to-day is three times that of 1960. I think we ought to praise the colleges of education for the way in which they have accepted the challenge of this great increase in their numbers over the last decade. But at the Department of Education and Science for three years I, along with the Secretary of State, was doing my best to increase the supply of teachers because, although there has been this great expansion, we still want more. We want more to enable us to reduce the size of classes; we want more because of the raising of the school-leaving age, and the fact that more children are staying at school after the school-leaving age. We want more for an expansion of nursery education. How many more do we want in the next ten years or so, especially if the Report is to be implemented? The Report is strangely silent on this matter. There are no forward projections. We just do not know what is happening. We do not know what the problem is. I fear that this Report will reduce the number of teachers, unless the Government are prepared for a great expansion of training facilities.
I come back to the first cycle and the diploma. It has been said that those who take the diploma and study for two years might be attracted into teaching. I do not see how two years unrelated to teaching can help a person to make up his mind. I think it is significant that the "Note of Extension", as it is called, is by the two members of the Committee who are most concerned with teacher training. I have been a little critical, and I know that people will say, "Well, what would you do?" Quite frankly, I would prefer the status quo to the proposals in this Report. I should like to see closer links with the universities rather than more divisiveness. Ideally, I should like to see us progress towards a three-year

189
course degree awarded by the universities or the C.N.A.A.; a three-year degree course for teaching, the education service, and other related professions, and a course which would combine academic studies with a knowledge of teaching techniques, and this to be followed by practical work and training. I know that there is the problem of what happens when the graduates from the universities wish to teach. Until comparatively recently it was possible for a graduate to become a qualified teacher with a degree and no training as a teacher. During our period of office we stopped this for primary schools, but it is still possible to do this for secondary schools. But I welcome in the Report the new trainings for graduates which it has recommended.
I believe that in this debate we have been forgetting the receiving end of all this—the children. After all, we are talking about people who are to teach children. What makes a good teacher? I am sure that everybody has his own list, but my list would be this in order of priority: first, a sympathy with, and an understanding of, children. In a Northern town which had a lot of immigrants, I came across a teacher who was going out to Pakistan for three months in order to find out how the children, the immigrants, lived in their own communities. I think that there should be much more of this concern with regard to children living in our own country as well. There must be this sympathy with, and understanding of, children, and a desire to see what their home backgrounds are and to understand them. Second I would put the power to communicate; third, a knowledge of the skills of teaching; fourth, an understanding and a knowledge of what is going on in the world outside the school; and fifth, academic knowledge. You will notice that I have put this last, although I would say that it is very important indeed for some teachers. I left my teachers' college some years ago with a distinction in advanced mathematics, and I must say that of all the things that I learned during my period of training this was the least help when I was in the classroom.
A NOBLE LORD: Shame!
BARONESS BACON: It may be a shame, but my advanced mathematics was of no use when, for six months, because
190
of reorganisation, I was teaching children of six or seven. It might have been of some use to me. I believe that this Report falls down because its priorities are wrong. This debate has shown that there are many misgivings, particularly with regard to cycle one, to which is attached of course cycle two. What we decide now with regard to teacher training will affect the education of the children in this country for the next 20, 30 or even 40 years, and it is important that we get it right. I hope, therefore, that the Government will pause, take heed of what has been said to-day, listen to what is being said outside, and not rush into this without adequate thought and preparation.
6.57 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, the role of the Civil Service in education has been compared with a man who, at one and the same time, must gaze with fixed attention and with eyes upraised to where the "high priests" of the educational world consider their theology, where the "philosophers" spin their theories, and where the educational "grand masters" contemplate their next move, while at the same time one ear has to be firmly glued to the ground to hear what is being said at the grass roots of the educational world. If then, this afternoon, the listening attitude of the Government spokesman has undergone a series of rather rapid changes, this is because the House has received advice from a variety of sources; successively from three former Ministers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, who I think is speaking for the first time in this House on education from the Front Bench, and who combines practical teaching experience with her former position as Minister of State.
We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who also has practical experience of teaching young children, and from my noble friend Lord Gowrie, who is a university lecturer. The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, is a distinguished pro-vice-chancellor, and we have heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, whose presence this afternoon reminds us of the effective contribution to this subject which is made by the voluntary bodies.

191
The noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King— who is not only a teacher but this afternoon rather a special teacher—gave us his knowledge on a variety of aspects of education; and of course we have had the benefit of the advice of the noble Lord who is the architect of this Report.
To the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, we are indebted for the very thoughtful manner of his introduction, which my right honourable friend will certainly read with great care, and for giving the House this opportunity to hear the wide range of views that have been expressed. However, my right honourable friend has made it clear—indeed it is in print in the foreword to the Report —that she would wish this extremely important Report to be the subject of wide public discussion as an essential preliminary to the consultations which she intends shortly to initiate. This is the answer to what several noble Lords have said this afternoon, and also to the noble Baroness herself. In these circumstances, I must make it crystal clear to your Lordships that you must not expect me at this stage to enter into detailed discussions on the points raised or on the substance of the Report itself.
I trust that your Lordships will not think I am being either evasive or discourteous in saying that; but were I to do so it would be seen—and I think would be seen quite rightly—as a prejudgment of consultations. In the context of this debate, I regret this for one reason. I regret it because so many interesting points have been raised on, for instance, the diploma of higher education and the value of the second cycle. Most important of all, there were two outstandingly interesting speeches, one by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on the first cycle, and the other by my noble friend Lady Young, who, to my mind, made one of the most interesting and comprehensive speeches on education which I have heard in this House. I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady White, expressed warm appreciation of it.
May I immediately associate the Government with the congratulations which have been extended to the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, and to his colleagues on the vigorous and speedy completion of their task. The noble Lord himself has reminded us this afternoon
192
that there can be no doubt about the difficulty of the task which he and his colleagues were set. The education and training of teachers had already been the subject of wide discussion and detailed examination, and that examination had already generated a mass of evidence. Much of the evidence consisted of statements of opinion, often widely divergent and sharply conflicting.
For it is true to say that underlying the discussion of teacher education for many years there has been a conflict between two views. One view would have the teacher a well-educated person able to adapt to the varying challenges of a teaching career. In its extreme form, this view would be consistent with the notion of the schoolmaster or schoolmistress as a distinguished amateur—one who is born and not made. The contrary view would hold that the complexity of the task in the modern world leaves no room for amateurism: the teacher must be a highly trained professional and, even at the very start of his or her career, must already be equipped with the essential basic skills needed in the first teaching post. This dichotomy—a word which has already been used this afternoon—reflects itself of course in distinctions between education and training and between theory and practice. Clearly, what is needed is a framework within which to achieve a balance and a reconciliation between these two aspects of the problem.
The education and training of teachers impinges in one way or another on all the other educational sectors. But it would have been neither desirable nor possible for the Committee to have ranged over the whole field, and their terms of reference were deliberately designed to indicate the areas to which they should direct their attention. I think the noble Lord's Committee can fairly claim to have dealt thoroughly with their central theme —the education and training of the teaching profession—while, at the same time, not neglecting to indicate possibilities which did not fall fully within their terms of reference. Indeed, the Committee showed great restraint in merely putting up signposts, as it were, to whole areas of very great interest which it would not have been right for them to explore in greater depth.
May I say at this stage that I am sure that my right honourable friend will read

193
with great interest what has been said to-day about the proposals in the Report for a diploma of higher education. Many of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, my noble friend Lord Gowrie, the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, in his interventions, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, have referred to this. Perhaps this is not quite so straightforward a subject as the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, made it appear when she referred to the difficulties which she saw in the diploma of higher education being available outside the teaching profession. Anyway, all of your Lordships have canvassed these varying questions—to what award it should lead; who should validate it; what will be its currency; and how will the universities treat it? These are all important questions which I entirely concede will need to be pursued, and pursued again during the consultative process.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, what the noble Lord has said leads me to believe that he misunderstood something I said. I was not quite sure of the point he was making about my saying that I had doubts about other people taking a diploma of higher education. What I thought I said was that perhaps there was a need for a diploma in higher education but not within teacher training; and that I did not like very much people who were not going to be teachers taking places which had hitherto been reserved for intending teachers, unless the colleges of education were greatly expanded.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I had taken the rather simpler line that she was saying that it was virtually impossible for the diploma to be taken outside of those who were intending to be teachers, and it was on that that I was saying the consultative process would need to operate.
May I say a quick word about the machinery of this Inquiry? This was a new kind of Inquiry. It was a small expert Committee working full-time to a fixed schedule, and some public comment on the way that this new kind of Inquiry was carried out has revealed a certain misunderstanding about the Committee's role. Incidentally, it has also conveyed some novel and somewhat interest-
194
ing implications. There has almost been the implication, for example, that it would have been proper for the Committee to conduct a kind of opinion poll among interested parties, and then to have constructed a new system from those components which had, as it were, attracted the most votes. It may indeed have been theoretically possible to proceed in this way. But there can be little doubt that the result would have been more bizarre even than that relatively homely creation, the camel, one definition of which is too well-known to bear repetition.
I think it is fair to say that another implication of some public comment has been that the Committee was some kind of judicial body analogous to a tribunal —and to a secret tribunal at that; hence the fulminations in some quarters about the so-called "leaks". In fact, the analogy with a legal process is entirely false. No one was on trial. As I have said, the Committee was composed of people of knowledge and distinction who were given the time and the opportunity for a process of study, discussion, analysis and the formulation of advice.
The Committee's method of work was their own choice. It was to examine afresh the mass of evidence already available, as well as to study the new evidence submitted to them; to seek the widest possible informal discussion and then to form their own judgment; and to reach conclusions on which to base their recommendations. There could be no guarantee that such a painstaking process would lead to a substantially unanimous Report. None the less, substantially, it has done so. Nor could there be any assurance in advance that by such a method the Report would be produced on time. In the event, it was submitted well within the year. On both these counts, also, the noble Lord and his Committee are most certainly to be congratulated.
When the noble Lord spoke in this House over eight years ago in the debate on the Robbins Report, he said:
"I have worked for most of my life in schools".
If I may say so, many of the points in the Report—points which are most easily seen in Chapter 2 on the third cycle—are eloquent of the knowledge and insight of the noble Lord (who has of course been in the university world for

195
some years) and his Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, referred for instance to paragraph 2.7 of Chapter 2, which draws attention to the need to continue to improve understanding and competence in language development for illiterate or semi-illiterate pupils. Your Lordships will be aware that my right honourable friend has expressed her disquiet about the size of the slow-learning problem and when the local authorities are responding, as we hope they will feel able to do increasingly, to the offer of additions to teacher quota to attend to these pupils.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, drew attention to the Committee's recommendation that the need for a teacher to develop or up-date skills with immigrant pupils can be met in the second year of the second cycle, or of course in the third cycle. I think I am right in saying that, speaking purely statistically, it falls to only about one teacher in every six to work with immigrant pupils. But, of course, when this occurs special skills are often required to bring out the true ability from a child who has—
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I do not like to interrupt the noble Lord at a late point in his speech, but I had hoped that from our earlier debate on this subject he had grasped that we are not so much concerned with skills for teaching immigrant pupils, important as they are, as with the attitudes of the indigenous pupils.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I think that what I am saying to your Lordships would apply equally to both. I am agreeing here with the Report that, wherever it may come, in whichever cycle —but I am mainly confining my remarks to the third cycle—special skills are often required to bring out the true ability from either the immigrant child, to whom the environment may be new and who needs a working knowledge of what is probably a new language, or, I would agree with the noble Baroness, from the indigenous child, who needs precisely the same special care. During the past year, reports by Her Majesty's Inspectorate have been published drawing urgent attention to the need to assess the ability, and the educational needs, of younger immigrant children, and to
196
continue to attend particularly to the language problems of secondary pupils, whose abilities, and therefore their opportunities, may well be dependent upon what we call this "second phase" work.
I was particularly interested to hear the noble Lord refer to the part of the Report where the Committee spoke of the need for "managerial" courses for many of the teaching profession to-day. To me, it is always remarkable how little we still know about the effects of the size of a school. Indeed, this uncertainty is perhaps reflected in the statistics, which show some evidence of a move away in the last six or seven years from the establishment of very large schools but a slight rise in the average size of comprehensive schools during the same period. My right honourable friend is always ready to encourage moves towards relatively smaller schools, but in the comprehensive sector I think we shall always be talking of numbers which are relevant to paragraph 2.15, which says that heads, deputies and heads of department
"will have to lead stalls whose combined knowledge and experience is far wider than their own, and will have to co-ordinate and direct the talents of these teachers to the best advantage of the schools. They will need to develop a clear idea of the aims and functions of their schools or departments and to assess the present and potential contribution of those serving under them. For this role—managerial as well as professional—the right kind of training is of great importance."
If I may just pick out two quick last examples, looking through the recommendations of Chapter 2 I was heartened to note that the Government policy is, I would submit, already very much on the same track as that of the James Committee in a couple of other respects. The paragraph on flexibility, in the third cycle courses, recommends possible new approaches to courses for careers teachers. At this moment, members of the Inspectorate are conducting a survey into careers guidance in schools, and I believe it is an urgent necessity to discover, as this survey is seeking to do, the best methods already in use, and from them to attempt to draw conclusions on this crucial stage of a pupil's education.
I was interested also to read, in paragraph 2.19, these words:
"A language teacher might benefit most at some stage in his career by residence abroad …",

197
because two months ago the Government were able to announce target figures for teacher exchanges with France and Germany of 200 for next year, rising to 500 in 1973–74, and with a target figure of 1,000 exchanges thereafter. My Lords, the third cycle recommendations are relevant to teachers who need to respond to an existing situation and to those who, of their own initiative, move into a post demanding new skills or a fresh approach. The raising of the school-leaving age is the most topical example of the former requirement, and I would take this opportunity to express appreciation of the considerable national effort which the teaching profession has mounted to work out new curricula and fresh ideas; and to say how glad I was that the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, with her experience, mentioned the Schools Council in this respect.
The latter point, where one moves perhaps to a different environment or to a different sort of school, was illustrated in the Report by the Committee drawing attention to those who discover their vocation to teach handicapped children after having qualified. Over a year ago I had the good fortune to visit an educationally subnormal school in South-East England, and I noted that almost every man on the staff had transferred into the school from primary or secondary teaching; and one factor was common to every single one—a desire to teach these particular pupils, and, in some cases, a wish to become involved in the education and training of the mentally handicapped. Now within the immediate future the new three-year courses for teachers of the mentally handicapped should be training more teachers than the excellent two-year diploma courses which are now being phased out; but my experience on that day a year ago has taught me that here again is an example of the Report's foresight which I think we should do very well to heed. If the proposal for expanding teachers' opportunities for in-service training—a proposal which has attracted a wide measure of support from your Lordships this afternoon—were adopted, then it is clear, both from reading the Report and from this debate, that the Committee's recommendations would involve the release of teachers on a scale which would need to be phased in with the continuing increase in the total teacher
198
supply; that the pattern of courses would need to be built up over a period of time; and that there would be major organisational problems to be overcome —matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred as meaning a very real allocation of resources.
In this connection, may I just say that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, was perhaps inadvertently a little less than fair to the Report when she queried the changes which the second cycle would or could effect and when she omitted reference to, for instance, the professional centres and the professional tutors. This, I think, is also the answer to Lady White's warning of the danger that licensed teachers might be imposed upon by making them fill the gaps for those absent on third cycle work. My reading of the Report leaves me in no doubt—this is not my opinion: I am saying my reading of the Report leaves me in no doubt—that this is a danger which the Committee would have been united in opposing, but doubtless this again is a point which will be fully discussed in the consultations during the coming months.
It may well be, therefore, that the timetable for action suggested by the Report is going to prove to he more speedy than can in fact be accomplished, and this view is strengthened by the time needed for the consultative process; by the fact that local government will not be reorganised, of course, until 1974; and by the temporary effect on the pupil-teacher ratio which will be a result of the raising of the school-leaving age. Behind all these factors lie the words on cost of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others of your Lordships, including my noble friend Lord Gowrie. The noble Baroness would have liked some words actually in this debate. My right honourable friend has told the House of Commons that she will provide very broad estimates of the cost involved when our study of the Report has been completed. At this stage, that, I am afraid, is all that I can say.
My Lords, the factors which I have just enumerated suggest that if major changes are to be made, a transitional period is going to be needed, with new proposals operative, not at once but needing to be introduced over a period. For instance, the proposal to raise the minimum entry

199
qualifications of intending teachers to two "A"-levels could not, as the noble Lord, Lord James, himself has recognised this afternoon, be fully operative at an early date if damaging effects on teacher supply were to be avoided; nor could the introduction of a new two-year higher education qualification be achieved in a day. On the substance of tile Report, I have confined the remarks that I have submitted to the House to the third cycle, but the question of whether it would be desirable to adopt the proposals of the Report, and, if so, the extent to which this should be done, and the timing of the necessary action to make them operative, are all clearly subjects to be covered in discussions which my right honourable friend will hold with those concerned and which will doubtless proceed through a good deal of the summer. Your Lordships will forgive me if I repeat that I must not pursue any further at this stage topics which might seem to prejudice the outcome of these discussions.
"My Lords, in a debate of this kind, on a definite and fairly technical subject, it is clearly almost impossible for any speaker to say anything very original. I know only too well that most of what I shall say has been said or will said probably a great deal better." —
[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11/12/63; col. 1284.]
Those were the opening words of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord James, in the debate on the Robbins Report in this House in 1963. They did not apply to his speech on that occasion and they certainly do not apply to his Report for which we are grateful to the noble Lord and to his Committee. Their work has provided an admirable basis for most important national discussions to which your Lordships have contributed this afternoon by this debate on the issues involved.
7.21 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I rise first to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I think it has belied the implications in the remark of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, that we are all communicators, from David Frost down to the most humble Member of this House. I think that the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for instance, rate probably higher. It would not be right for me to attempt to answer the debate in any
200
way. I understand the position of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. He has made it clear why it would not be right for him to answer the debate—although for someone who told us that he had nothing to say, he managed to say quite a lot. I feel that in a way the greatest pity is that, owing to a recent change in the Standing Orders of this House, it is not possible to ask the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme to speak a second time in reply to the debate. It would have been fascinating to hear his comments on the speeches which came after his, particularly some which possibly ignored some of the qualifications, reservations and exceptions that he and his colleagues were careful to make all the way through tile Report. I should also have enjoyed hearing his reply to the extremely cogent and well-argued criticisms of the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon.
One or two noble Lords, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady White, have suggested that this debate was perhaps held too soon for us to summon our resources. I apologise if this is so. I thought that if the impoverished, understaffed Liberal Party could organise a one-day conference addressed by three professors of education, the chairman of the Schools Council and the Director of the International Baccalaureat, with proper background papers, and could have produced reports between the publication of the James Report and this debate, then other Parties could do the same. If I was wrong I apologise.
I turn to one or two comments on educational matters. It is part of the Liberal Party policy to take education off the rates and put it back on central finance. I do not fall into the trap of believing that that solves the financial problems; I am aware that it only transfers them. But I think it is a point that I should have mentioned earlier, before we began talking about the problems for local government. I think that probably a number of noble Lords underestimate the demand for the Dip.H.E. which may come not only from people who are not in higher education at the moment but from people in the universities who may prefer to go for a Dip.H.E. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, I did not think that that was a bad thing. I believe that it is better to have people taking the courses they want to take, even if

201
they are a harsher discipline, than those they do not want to take. I take, and I hope the Government will take, the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, when she said how many more places we should need for Dip.H.E. if this were to happen. Nor do I believe that cheapness is necessarily an insult or a bad thing in itself. I thought that frequently in this debate cheapness was equated with badness without the point being proved. No-one who has anything to do with the allocation of resources in education can possibly do anything but approve when things are done cheaply, provided that they are also done well.
My Lords, I would close by repeating the thanks that we all owe to the noble Lord, Lord James, not only for his speech but also for the immense work that he put in on the Report. I should like to apologise to him if by this debate at rather short notice we have upset his diary and to say how grateful we are that he found the time to come to talk to us. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

UNITED KINGDOM PIPELINES BILL [H.L.]
Reported without amendment.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT CHANGES IN SCOTLAND
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT CHANGES IN SCOTLAND
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES IN 1971
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES IN 1971