Sitting of 11 March 1975

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
EASTBOURNE HARBOUR BILL [Lords]
Order for consideration, as amended, read
To be considered tomorrow

CORN EXCHANGE BILL
OCEAN TRANSPORT AND TRADING(DELIVERY WARRANTS) BILL
STANDARD AND CHARTERED BANK BILL

MERSEYSIDE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL
As amended, considered: to be read the Third time.
BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL(By Order)

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  Service Personnel (Rent and Rate Rebates)
  Mr. James Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent members of Her Majesty's Forces are having to claim rent and rate rebates.
  The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): The total number drawing rebates under the Forces' rent and rates rebate scheme on 31st December last was just under 7,500.
  Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware how disturbing— indeed, shocking— I find his statement? Will he at the earliest possible moment call this matter to the attention of the Armed Services Pay Review Body to see whether we can get better remuneration in what I believe to be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs?
  Mr. Rodgers: I do not agree that it is shocking. It is wrong that anyone should feel there is indignity involved in getting a rebate. The figures show that Service men do not live in a privileged position. I certainly agree that these figures are relevant to the decisions that the independent review body will be making in due course.

  Multi-Rôle Combat Aircraft
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement about the orders for, and supply of, multi-rôle combat aircraft for the Royal Air Force.
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest position concerning the order for the multi-rôle combat aircraft, including revisions of numbers, delivery dates and costs since the original plan for 385 at £·4 million each.
  Mr. William Rodgers: We plan to order 385 MRCA aircraft and firm orders will be placed at the beginning of the series production phase. The delivery programme is under discussion.

  241
  So far as costs are concerned, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) on 27th February.— [Vol. 887, c. 225–6.]
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is it not a fact that both the German and Italian requirements have been reduced on two occasions and that although the Royal Air Force requirement has not been reduced it is now to spread its order over a longer period? In those circumstances, does the figure of £3·4 million at September 1973 prices still hold good, or has the Minister any other estimate to offer the House?
  Mr. Rodgers: On the first two questions the answers are "Yes" and "Yes ". On the third, if the hon. Gentleman will refer to my answer on 27th February he will see that I said it was now £3·9 million, the extra figure being accounted for by inflation.
  Mr. Allaun: Will my hon. Friend tell us approximately how much extra, on top of the £3·9 million, the RAF version will cost? Is he aware that in West Germany estimates of more than twice £3·9 million are being given? Is there not a considerable point in the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson)?
  Mr. Rodgers: The definition of the RAF version is at an early stage. Therefore, I cannot help my hon. Friend with the figure that he would like to have. I am aware that there has been a great deal of speculation about the figures, but those that I have given this afternoon and on previous occasions in this House are not disputed by the authorities in Germany and elsewhere which are responsible for the aircraft.
  Mr. Younger: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that not only are the prospects for the MRCA looking encouraging at present but the cost estimates throughout its life, so far, have been very accurate and that the rise has been almost entirely accounted for by inflationary factors?
  Mr. Rodgers: The phrase "almost entirely" is about right. It is difficult to make calculations which can be defended against all those who might criticise them. The best estimates that I can make are
  242
  that at constant 1969 prices and exchange rates the anticipated cost, at a very early stage, of about £1·5 million would be about £1·9 million now. Therefore, the increase attributable to changes in design is very small.

  North Sea Oil Rigs
  Mr. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the proposals he announced in his statement on 11th February provide a defence of individual rigs and platforms, as opposed to a patrol and surveillance exercise.
  Mr. William Rodgers: The number of rigs and platforms in the North Sea is expected to grow to about 100 and it would clearly not be practicable to provide each of them with individual protection. The ships and aircraft referred to in my statement will provide essentially a surveillance capability.
  Mr. Townsend: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable criticism of the Government's proposal amongst independent defence experts? Does not the recent incident concerning a Soviet trawler in the area suggest the need to have naval helicopters available in the area? Will he reconsider his proposal in the light of the wide range of criticism directed at it?
  Mr. Rodgers: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being less than generous. Of course, there is a continuing public debate about this difficult question— I would not quarrel with that at all— but to say that there has been considerable criticism is wrong. There has been widespread understanding of what we are seeking to do. If experience demands, or new circumstances recommend, some change of plan, we shall be willing to consider it, but on our best assumptions at present, what we are proposing makes good sense.
  Sir John Gilmour: Does the Minister of State agree that if our Armed Forces were in charge of anything as valuable as an oil production platform, they would guard it day and night?
  Mr. Rodgers: That is a very interesting question. I am not quite sure about the conclusion which the hon. Gentleman himself would draw from that.

  Her Majesty's Ships (V/STOL Aircraft)
  Mr. Roperasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many ships in service with the Royal Navy are at present capable of operating vertical take-off aircraft.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Roy Mason): A number of ships in the Royal Navy would, to a varying degree, be capable of operating V/STOL aircraft.
  Mr. Roper: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he say how many ships he expects will be able to operate such aircraft by 1980?
  Mr. Mason: By 1980 HMS "Invincible" should be commissioned. Possibly HMS "Hermes" will still be in commission by that time. Platforms on Royal fleet auxiliaries could be quickly converted for short-term operations.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does the Secretary of State realise how important it is that the Navy should continue to have ships that can operate vertical takeoff aircraft, from the point of view of the prevention of war rather than waging war, because it is in this respect that manned aircaft have such an advantage over a missile?
  Mr. Mason: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise, with the introduction of the new class of Invincible through-deck cruisers, the platforms will be there if necessary.
  Mr. Churchill: I recognise the difficulties that the Secretary of State is having with certain of his hon. Friends, but is it not clear that British employment interests and British export and balance-of-payments interests require a very early go-ahead for the V /STOL aircraft required for these ships?
  Mr. Mason: That is a different question, and one which arises later on the Order Paper. The hon. Gentleman should also understand that I do not have difficulties with my hon. Friends. There are occasional misunderstandings, but on the whole we get on well together.

  Helicopters (Rescues)
  Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make
  244
  a statement on the number of people rescued by Royal Naval helicopters in each of the past five years.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Frank Judd): Complete figures are available only from 1972 and are as follows: 1972, 25; 1973, 62; 1974, 160— making a total of 247.
  These statistics cover only those Royal Naval helicopters within the United Kingdom search and rescue region; rescues by ship-borne helicopters are not normally recorded.
  Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that the information that he has given suggests a very real achievement? Does he not feel that all those involved in these rescue activities deserve great commendation and wholehearted approbation?
  Mr. Judd: I am certain that I speak for all of my colleagues when I thank my hon. Friend for those very appropriate remarks. Certainly we wish to pay a warm tribute to all those who operate this service, in not only the Royal Navy but the Royal Air Force.
  Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate the efforts that some of us have made to ensure that this service is maintained, particularly in the South-East? After these figures, will he give an assurance that no one will be able to persuade him to stop the service?
  Mr. Judd: This service will remain as important in the future as it has been in the past.

  Cyprus
  Mr. loan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Service men have been satisfactorily resettled in the United Kingdom home base since their return from Cyprus in August 1974; and if he will make a statement.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Brynmor John): Relatively few Service men returned to the United Kingdom in August, although 3,657 Service families came back to the United Kingdom at about that time. All the families have been satisfactorily resettled, either in Service accommodation or through private arrangements.
  Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What consideration is being given to withdrawing from the base completely? Is it not necessary for us to think in terms of an international peacekeeping force in the area, so that the families of all Service men there can be brought back to Britain?
  Mr. John: My hon. Friend will know that in the defence review consideration is being given to the future of the Cyprus base, among other considerations, and I cannot possibly anticipate that review.
  Mr. Onslow: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether satisfactory arrangements have been made to reimburse families who lost property through looting or other causes during the disturbances in Cyprus? What steps are being taken to safeguard properties which have not yet been subject to looting?
  Mr. John: As I understand it, the situation regarding future looting is satisfactory. On the arrangements for the compensation of families, the hon. Gentleman will know that they have been subjected to quick and sympathetic consideration.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total net recruitment to the Armed Forces in January; and what were the comparable figures for January 1974 and January 1973, respectively.
  Mr. John: The number of recruits, all ranks male and female, joining the Regular Forces in January 1975 was 4,037. The comparable figure in January 1974 was 3,745 and in January 1973, 4,529.
  Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that the figure is very encouraging, showing a marked increase in recruitment? Will he give an assurance to the people of Glasgow that if an approach is made to the Government to assist those people with moving 50,000 tons of accumulated rubbish, the Government will give it sympathetic consideration?
  Mr. John: On the first part of the question, certainly the recruitment this year, which has totalled 36,000 so far, as compared with 27,000 last year, is very encouraging. The hon. Gentleman's
  246
  second question is a matter for the Scottish Office and for my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is, I understand, discussing the matter today.
  Mr. Dempsey: Will my hon. Friend state what is the estimated wastage arising out of this recruitment, after the recruits have entered the Services?
  Mr. John: The question of wastage can never be properly quantified. All that we are concerned to do by the frankness of our recruiting material and the knowledge which we disseminate about Service life is to ensure that the wastage of trained recruits is as low as possible.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the payment of compensation to the dependants of members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces who have lost their lives as a result of terrorist activities in Northern Ireland; and what replies he has sent.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): Since the beginning of the year, I have received six representations about the payment of such compensation. In my replies, I explained how sizeable lump sums and pensions are paid to dependants, and how these payments have to be taken into account by the courts in assessing the compensation.
  Mr. Lawson: Despite the fact that he has had only six complaints, does the Minister not agree that there is widespread unease on this matter, in that under the existing 1968 legislation the amount of compensation payable is often pitifully small and in some cases almost nothing, that it is based on wholly inadequate criteria and that it often requires very distressing questionnaires to be completed by widows immediately after bereavement? What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do or to recommend his right hon. Friends to do to improve this rather scandalous situation?
  Mr. Brown: I am aware that there is considerable feeling on this issue and, equally, that there have been what have been regarded as a number of offensive questions. But the operation of the

  247
  Criminal Injuries to Persons (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 is, as the House knows, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I shall most certainly draw to his attention what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  Mr. Powell: Will the Minister ensure that whenever the announcement is made of sums of compensation, steps are taken to present them in the context of the full benefits to which there is entitlement, thus avoiding the widespread misunderstanding and unjustified indignation which arise from the apparent disparity between these and civilian awards?
  Mr. Brown: I shall certainly give consideration to the point that the right hon. Gentleman raises. Whether it would be desirable in every case to say precisely just what compensation and benefit a widow should receive is something that we would have to consider. Clearly, that is, in effect, what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting. But I shall certainly consider this matter.
  Mr. Goodhart: Will the Minister now carry out a thorough-going review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act to the extent that it affects Service men, as there is widespread dismay about the way in which Service widows are interrogated and about the sums concerned?
  Mr. Brown: As I have already said, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and no doubt he will be apprised of all that has been said here this afternoon. I can give the assurance that some of the more offensive questions, or the questions which have been regarded as offensive, to dependants are under consideration at present.

  Aviation Industry
  Mr. James Lamondasked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from workers and management in the aviation industry with regard to the effects of the proposed defence cuts.
  Mr. William Rodgers: We have received a number of representations aimed at clarifying, and in some cases modifying, the effects of the proposed defence review measures on individual
  248
  companies. I have also received a deputation of workers from Hawker Siddeley Aviation.
  Mr. Lamond: When my hon. Friend was carrying out his welcome and necessary defence review, did he regard part of his responsibility to lessen as much as possible the impact on jobs in the aviation industry? If he did, will he consider setting back the delivery dates of some of the aircraft ordered from Hawker Siddeley Aviation by his Department so that a more even level of employment may be maintained in the industry? Further, will he consider discussing with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry the possibility of reconsidering the position of the HS146? That would provide a welcome job extension for the men who are affected by possible redundancies due to the defence review.
  Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will bear in mind my hon. Friend's later remarks. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is fully aware of the views that have been expressed in the House about the HS146. As regards my hon. Friend's earlier remarks— yes, at all stages of the defence review my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has had in mind the likely employment impact of the savings which he has sought to achieve. I must say again what I have said before, namely, that it is not possible to achieve the sort of savings that we have chosen to make, and about which we have been pressed, without there being some painful consequences in employment terms. We shall do all that we can to soften them, but I cannot give an undertaking that despite the consultations we shall maintain an aircraft programme which is unrelated to needs as we see them.
  Mr. Kilfedder: In view of the growing number of unemployed in Northern Ireland, will the Minister make an effort to save the jobs of 200 people at RAF Sydenham who will be made redundant before the end of this year? Will the Minister ensure that the Buccaneer contract, which was filched from RAF Sydenham and given, as I understand it, to St. Athan, in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force, will be returned to RAF

  249
  Sydenham to protect employment at that base?
  Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish the House to misunderstand the implications of his remarks. However, I have taken note of what he said, and so has my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Newens: Does my hon. Friend agree that at the end of the war much larger numbers of men engaged in the munitions industry were successfully redeployed? Is there any reason for our not being able successfully to redeploy these men when so many products could be made which could be usefully disposed of on both the export market and the domestic market?
  Mr. Rodgers: Historical parallels are always very difficult to sustain. I am not convinced that the parallel which my hon. Friend draws is valid. Of course, Ministers have been concerned all the time that those who might lose their job opportunities as a result of the defence review will find other useful things to do. For that reason we are consulting my right lion. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry.
  Mr. Onslow: Will the Minister confirm that the representations he has received from the shop floor have been very strong and that they have focused on the danger of loss of defence sales overseas which may follow if projects on order for our Services are cut? Do the calculations of likely redundancies include the redundancies that must flow if these defence orders do not materialise?
  Mr. Rodgers: It is true that the representations have been very strong. It is not true that they have been principally concerned with export orders. It is true that if we were to lose export orders there would be consequences for employment.

  Maritime Harrier Aircraft
  Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement about plans for the maritime Harrier.
  Mr. Pattieasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is now in a
  250
  position to make a statement on the future of the naval Harrier.
  Mr. Mason: I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) on 11th February by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence.
  Mr. Lane: So that the Government may come to an earlier decision to go ahead with the maritime Harrier, will the right hon. Gentleman consider two points in particular? First, will he bear in mind that without the Harrier the future all-round effectiveness of the Royal Navy will be much less? Secondly, will he bear in mind that unless the British Government show faith in this aircraft its great export potential will not be realised?
  Mr. Mason: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the Royal Navy has always recognised that if the maritime Harrier received the go-ahead it would be an added operational capability, especially as regards the new through-deck cruisers that will be coming into operation in the 1980s. Export potential will be entirely dependent upon whether anyone is prepared to purchase a type of vessel that will be able to act as a landing platform for the maritime Harrier.
  Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is intense anxiety about defence cuts amongst the workers of North Humberside? Thousands of Hull men in that area work at Hawker Siddeley. Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that they want a chance to build not only the HS146, which is a civilian plane, but the Harrier jump-jet?
  Mr. Mason: I can well understand the feelings of my hon. Friend on this matter. He will know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State and others have received deputations from Brough, Hull. The project has not been abandoned; it is still alive. The design is going ahead and it is being funded by Her Majesty's Government. In present economic circumstances I cannot at the moment go ahead with a new military project likely to cost tens of millions of pounds.
  Mr. Goodhew: Is it not the case that the Shah of Iran is prepared to purchase both the aircraft and the through-deck cruiser to take them? Is he not most anxious to do so? Would not that be

  251
  most advantageous to British industry? The Government arc spending tens of millions of pounds on workers' cooperatives that produce uneconomic goods. Would it not be better to spend the money on aircraft that we really need?
  Mr. Mason: I want positive proof that there is a distinct order being placed for an expensive through-deck cruiser with a full complement of maritime Harriers. Such an order is not yet before me. That is obviously one of the distinct possibilities of a sale if we decide to go ahead with the combination of both.
  Mr. Newens: Is my right hon. Friend able to say what total cost would have to be added to public expenditure if we decided to go ahead with the maritime Harrier? Will he make it clear to Conservative Members, who are continually pressing for cuts in public expenditure, that they must face very clearly what that means in these terms?
  Mr. Mason: It is far too early to give the House an estimated cost of the development of the maritime Harrier. It is much too soon in its design stages. As soon as we have taken a decision I shall be able to give the House the figures that it requires.
  Mr. Younger: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will give due weight to the fact that this is not any old aircraft project but a unique aircraft which has nothing else in the world to compete with it? Is he aware that it has been working for some time to the complete satisfaction of the United States Marine Corps, on the other side of the Atlantic? Will he reconsider his expression "tens of millions of pound "? Does he not agree that that is a bit of an exaggeration? Will he bear in mind that the Government appear to think it perfectly all right to spend £25 million a year on free contraceptives for all? It is incredible that they cannot afford to spend the money on the maritime Harrier.
  Mr. Mason: I hope that the hon. Member has not now decided to describe this as the "contraceptive Harrier ", or we shall never breed any more. I offer him congratulations upon having become the official defence spokesman for the Opposition. I hope that as he questions
  252
  us on these matters he will get his facts correct in future. This aircraft has not yet been completed, and therefore it has not been operating on the other side of the Atlantic. First, I have to recognise the military necessity for the go-ahead of the maritime Harrier. Secondly, I have to recognise that we are ahead of the world in this branch of technology, thirdly, that there may be prospects for exports and, fourthly, that it may be a valuable new project for an aircraft industry which is badly in need of work. I have to consider all those factors, but as yet I have not come to a decision.

  Royal Air Force (Training Aircraft)
  Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the aircraft requirements for future Royal Air Force navigational flight engineer and pilot training.
  Mr. William Rodgers: We plan to meet our future requirement for these kinds of training by a mixture of existing and new types of training aircraft, ground simulation techniques and, possibly, some use of civil resources.
  Mr. Huckfield: Is my hon. Friend aware that many Labour Members are in favour of even bigger defence cuts? Does he realise that the conversion of four of the 14 Argosy aircraft is almost complete at Hawker Siddeley Bitteswell, and that it would be more expensive to cancel them than to complete them? If we are to save even more on defence expenditure, is this the right way to do it?
  Mr. Rodgers: I am aware that my hon. Friend and others would like even bigger defence cuts. I am not aware, however, that it would be more expensive to cancel than to complete, and I assume that if it is necessary to cancel, this would be consistent with my hon. Friend's views about defence cuts.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will the Minister say what type of new training aircraft he has in mind?
  Mr. Rodgers: Not at this stage. We are reviewing all the possibilities, and there are some existing aircraft which might be suitable for this rôle. We shall do our best to provide for the RAF's needs at a lower cost than now.
  Mr. Park: Is it not a fact that modification of these Argosy planes at Bitteswell would provide the capacity to train engineers and pilots much more economically than can be done at present?
  Mr. Rodgers: That is something that I shall look into. However, I must rest at what I said before. Whatever decision we reach about the Argosy— our consultations will continue, and I have taken note of the representations made by the trade unions concerned— it would be more expensive to go ahead than to cancel. That is the choice which Ministers would have to make, and whatever decision we make it will not be popular with some hon. Members.

  Expenditure Cuts (Redundancies)
  Mr. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he can yet state what redundancies will occur in North Staffordshire and South Cheshire as a consequence of cuts in defence expenditure.
  Mr. William Rodgers: It does not seem likely that these areas will be much affected in terms of redundancies or loss of job opportunities.
  Mr. Golding: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am delighted with that answer? Will he make certain that whatever pressure he comes under from our hon. Friends to increase defence cuts, North Staffordshire will not be affected, in employment terms?
  Mr. Rodgers: As always, I shall do my very best to draw a fence round my hon. Friend's constituency.
  Mr. Churchill: In view of the prospect of rapidly rising levels of redundancy in the aircraft industry in the Greater Manchester area, will the hon. Member say what estimate was made of the loss of jobs in the industry nationally, prior to going ahead with the defence review?
  Mr. Rodgers: I cannot give a figure at the moment.
  Mr. Churchill: Why not?
  Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Members gets too angry too often, and he shows too little patience. We gave an overall figure and we are now examining the detailed implications of the review. As I said,
  254
  I have had representations from workers and management in the aircraft industry, and consultations are continuing. The Defence White Paper will be published shortly, but some of these consultations will be continued thereafter. We are trying to find the best possible accommodation, and it takes time.
  Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many redundancies he now expects there to be as a result of his proposed defence cuts.
  Mr. William Rodgers: The Defence White Paper will give details of the likely scale of redundancies amongst Service men. So far as redundancies or loss of job opportunities affecting civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence or of defence contractors are concerned, our consultations are continuing. Much will depend on how our proposals are worked out in detail.
  Mr. Morrison: Because of the tremendous concern amongst all the forces about continuing employment, will the Minister prior to the publication of the White Paper make a statement about possible redundancies and where they are likely to occur?
  Mr. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is present and it is for him to decide whether, at a busy time, given publication of the White Paper next week, it will be possible to meet the hon. Gentleman's wishes.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the Minister aware that many of the engineers who met a deputation of Labour Members of Parliament at two aircraft factories last week would greatly prefer to work on civil rather than military contracts— for instance, on the HS146 and the civil version of the HS748, which would be of great value to the developing nations? Are these workers, who rightly want work, entitled to expect civil alternatives from the Government for their factories?
  Mr. Rodgers: Certainly not from the Ministry of Defence, which is not concerned with civil versions of aircraft. My hon. Friend may be right in saying that the workers involved in the aircraft industry prefer work on civil contracts, but I can say that they would prefer work of some kind to no work at all The representations made to me in recent

  255
  times have been for such modification as we can secure within the budget fixed by the defence review which will enable them to look forward with less anxiety to their future.

  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete the consultations with the NATO allies to which he referred in his statement to the House on 3rd December 1974.
  Mr. Mason: The consultations with our NATO allies are nearing completion and I expect to publish details in the Defence White Paper later this month.
  Mr. Gow: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what representations have been made to him by our NATO allies about the strength of British forces on the mainland of Europe?
  Mr. Mason: I do not think that at this stage I can reveal that to the hon. Member. The White Paper is now being printed, and the conclusions of our consultations with our NATO allies will be embodied in that review. For the information of the House, it will be published next Wednesday 19th March.
  Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend say what consultations he has had with our NATO allies about the removal of the American Polaris bases? When does he intend to carry out this aspect of the Labour Party manifesto policy?
  Mr. Mason: On the first part of the question, at this stage there has been none. On the second part, as I have said many times, it will not be possible to have these multilateral talks on the removal of the Polaris bases until we have established conclusions on the conferences of CSCE and MBFR. After that, we may be able to start multilateral talks on the nuclear weaponry that we hold.
  Miss Fookes: Will the Minister make clear in the White Paper whether there are any disagreements between ourselves and our allies on what should be done?
  Mr. Mason: I think there will be indications of what our allies wish us to do,
  256
  and of the extent to which we have acceded to their requests.

  Fuel Conservation
  Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement outlining the measures he is taking to conserve fuel.
  Mr. John: In last winter's fuel crisis measures were introduced to reduce fuel consumption, and since then we have made every effort to economise in accordance with the general policy of Her Majesty's Government on energy conservation. The measures adopted include restrictions on Fleet consumption, flying, certain types of training, and the use of transport. Close control is also being exercised on the use of fuel for such purposes as heating, lighting and cooking. The Property Services Agency, in consultation with the Ministry of Defence, is also implementing a programme of work to improve the heating efficiency of defence buildings.
  Mr. Steel: I thank the Minister for that interesting answer. Is he aware that those parts of the country which have been most severely affected by the Government's fuel conservation measures and by the increase in the price of petrol are, unhappily, those rural areas which are used regularly for overflying on these low-flying exercises? Will the Minister say what quantity of fuel is used on these exercises, and what is the mileage per gallon of these aircraft?
  Mr. John: I shall write to the hon. Member about the total consumption and mileage per gallon. The total consumption of oil fuel by Her Majesty's Forces is 4 per cent. of the total bill. Low flying is already restricted to the minimum necessary to retain an operational commitment, and no perceptible reduction in this type of training can now be expected.
  Mr. Jessel: Will the Minister say how much fuel is used on the Beira patrol?
  Mr. John: The hon. Member will have heard the question asked last time and will have heard my answer to it. He should put down a Question on this subject to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy.

  RAF Tern Hill (Helicopter Training Facilities)
  Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future use of the helicopter training facilities at RAF Tern Hill.
  Mr. John: No, Sir. I must ask the hon. Member to wait until the publication of the statement on Defence Estimates.
  Mr. Biffen: Even so, will the Minister confirm that when the defence review has been put fully into effect some helicopter training facilities will be maintained at RAF Tern Hill?
  Mr. John: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just announced that the statement will be made on 19th March The hon. Member must await that statement.

  Middle East
  Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers and men of the British armed forces are currently serving with the armed forces of other countries in the Middle East; and for what purpose.
  Mr. Mason: There are 429 volunteers from Her Majesty's forces serving on loan to the armed forces of countries in the Middle East in training, advisory and executive positions.
  Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I entirely support the role of the armed forces in the Middle East, in so far as they are involved in United Nations peacekeeping operations and in other operations under the authority of the United Nations? Is he aware, however, that I do not support in any sense the involvement of British armed forces in foreign civil wars such as in Oman? Will my right hon. Friend put an end to that involvement?
  Mr. Mason: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for the first part of his remarks. I indicated that these volunteers were active in six different Middle Eastern countries, including Oman. I am aware of the feelings of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members about our activity there, but it has been long-standing practice to allow loan volunteers to friendly
  258
  nations, especially to help in training, advisory and executive positions, and this we are continuing to do. The matter may well be covered in the Defence White Paper.
  Mr. Blaker: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear that our forces in Oman are there at the request of the Sultan, and that this so-called civil war would collapse in a matter of weeks if it were not fomented on the side of the so-called rebels from South Yemen?
  Mr. Mason: There are bound to be two sides in a conflict. I agree partly with what the hon. Gentleman says. I do not want to deal specifically with Oman, because that would be to pre-empt a Question on that country which appears on the Order Paper.

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Robin F. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Defence what expansion has already been made to the base facilities at Diego Garcia.
  Mr. Mason: I understand that as United States legislative procedures have yet to be completed the United States Government are not in a position to start work on the expansion to which our agreement was announced on 3rd December.
  Mr. Cook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the United States Congress has been informed that $65 million was spent on this project during 1973–74 and that a further $95,000 is budgeted for expenditure in 1974–75? Is that massive expenditure compatible with the modest expansion which my right hon. Friend indicated to the House? Has he seen recent Press reports that after this extension the base will have nuclear capability for nuclear bombers? Does he appreciate that that would be contrary to United Nations resolutions and the expressed wish of most States around the Indian Ocean?
  Mr. Mason: First, I must inform my hon. Friend that what we agreed to in the statement of 3rd December was work additional to that which was agreed in 1972. Secondly, the cost of that additional work, at the most, is $35 million. Thirdly, there are no plans to base ships or aircraft on Diego Garcia, and there will be

  259
  no facilities of any kind for nuclear weaponry.
  Mr. Mather: Will the right hon. Gentleman give recent figures concerning the number of Soviet ships visiting the Indian Ocean area?
  Mr. Mason: I cannot, off the cuff, give the figures. The hon. Gentleman must know, and the House is fully aware, that in recent years there has been increasing Soviet naval activity east of Suez, particularly in the Indian Ocean.
  Mr. Dalyell: In the discussions that took place in the Foreign Office last week, between Mr. Wilford and representatives of the Indian Government, were the objections of the Indian Government noted? What is the attitude of the Ministry of Defence?
  Mr. Mason: Although I was not involved in the discussion to which my hon. Friend refers, I can say that we took notice of what the Indians and the littoral States said about Diego Garcia and the possibility of a nuclear-free zone in the Indian Ocean. As my hon. Friend realises, the United States and the United Kingdom are prepared to consider an Australian proposal on how best to ensure a nuclear-free zone in that area.

  SOCIAL CONTRACT (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for the Environment on 21st February on the social contract and the railwaymen at Grimsby represents Government policy.
  Mr. George Gardinerasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Secretary of State for the Environment on 21st February in Grimsby on breaches of the social contract represents Government policy.
  Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for the Environment to the North Lincolnshire Society of Quantity Surveyors in Grimsby on 21st February on inflation and the social contract represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): In the absence of my right hon. Friend in Dublin for the meeting of the EEC Heads of Government, I have been asked to reply.
  Yes, Sir.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: If the Secretary of State for the Environment's remarks are in line with Government thinking, does not the Leader of the House agree that as British Rail made a loss of £51·6 million last year, any extra money needed for wages will have to come from a further injection of public money? If the social contract is to have any respectability in any quarter, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that to ask taxpayers to pay more taxes to meet a wage claim and then to charge them higher rail fares will be intolerable?
  Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made an excellent speech, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister carried it a stage further this weekend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was saying that to price the burden of costs of the railways beyond what the traffic can stand will inevitably lead to cuts in services, and that would lead to whole areas being deprived of a rail network, with all that that means in terms of unemployment in the industry and in social and regional terms. In 1975 we are providing £490 million to maintain passenger lines which are uneconomic.
  Mr. Gardiner: In that speech the Secretary of State for the Environment also referred to the control of public expenditure and one or two other budgetary matters. Will the Lord President tell us whether the Budget Statement to be presented to the House on 15th April will be the product solely of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's economic judgment or will owe something to the proposals for clobbering the self-employed and small business men now being put to the national executive by the Labour Party?
  Mr. Short: I cannot anticipate what the Chancellor will say in his Budget Statement.
  Mr. Spriggs: Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that there is

  261
  an agreed trade union/employer negotiating machinery to deal with these matters and that it is not for Members of Parliament or Ministers to interfere with that agreed machinery?
  Mr. Short: Yes, indeed, there is agreed machinery, and we have set the unions and employers free to negotiate their own wage rates. At the same time, we are in a difficult stage of changeover from a statutory system— which brought the country to the verge of ruin a year ago— to a free system. Of course there are problems. All that my right hon. Friend was doing was to urge negotiators to stay within the TUC guidelines.
  Mr. Latham: Have the Government any contingency plans if the railways reject the advice of the Secretary of State and settle outside the social contract?
  Mr. Short: That is an entirely hypothetical question which I would not venture to answer.
  Mr. Thorpe: I welcome the speech made by the Secretary of State for the Environment, but may we know why he was not the subject of a subsequent attack by the Secretary of State for Employment?
  Mr. Short: Because he was saying precisely the things which the Secretary of State for Employment has been saying for a long time.
  Mr. George Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is great resentment among trade unions about the social contract that exists? Does he further agree that the Opposition have devoted most of their time during the past week to defending excessive wealth, property and privilege?
  Mr. Short: I certainly agree with the second of my hon. Friend's propositions, but not with the first. The social contract was negotiated over a two-year period—
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Social contrast."] In that case, I fully share my hon. Friend's view.

  TUC (Meetings)
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the TUC leaders.
  Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) on 6th March.
  Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he could do a really good patching-up job this week while the Prime Minister is away in Dublin taking part in the current charade that some people call renegotiation? Instead of meeting the TUC leaders, he could meet the pickets assembled outside the House of Commons. He could take with him their pay slips, showing that for a 40-hour week skilled craftsmen earn only £28·3. He could meet many others—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is the third statement the hon. Member has made. He must ask a question.
  Mr. Skinner: I am just finishing. Is my right hon. Friend aware that he could resolve the problem by recommending an interim award to put before the meeting which is taking place on Monday with the Lord Privy Seal?
  Mr. Short: My hon. Friend's question is based on two wrong assumptions. The first is that there is something to be "patched up "while my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is away. There is nothing to be patched up. The second is that there is a charade going on in Dublin. There is a very serious piece of renegotiation taking place. It was on that basis that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) fought the last General Election—
  Mr. Skinner: I have never varied in my view.
  Mr. Short: On the main part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, as I pointed out yesterday this is an unofficial strike, negotiations are going on with the union, and they have not broken down. I hope that it is my hon. Friend's desire— a desire shared by all hon. Members— to persuade the men to go back to work and to listen to their union leaders.
  Sir Frederic Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that another aspect of the situation is that the meeting may take place before the former head of the KGB comes to Great Britain

  263
  as an apparently honoured guest of the TUC? If it takes place before then, will the right hon. Gentleman make clear the revulsion of hon. Members on both sides of the House at the visit?
  Mr. Short: If the hon. Gentleman tables a Question on that topic to the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend will be very pleased to answer it.
  Sir F. Bennett: Why cannot you?

  EDUCATION EXPENDITURE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  Mr. Brothertonasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on educational spending on the 21st February at the opening of the Lipman Building of the Newcastle-on-Tyne Polytechnic.
  Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend did so on 24th February, Sir.
  Mr. Brotherton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in that speech the Prime Minister talked of education spending overtaking expenditure on defence? Will he assure the House that this does not mean that the present euphoria resulting from the Prime Minister's latest visit to Moscow will lead to another massive cut in defence expenditure?
  Mr. Short: There is no connection at all between the very successful visit of my right hon. Friends to Moscow and the Defence White Paper.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that he and I very much welcome the visit of the Prime Minister to Newcastle-on-Tyne? Will he also confirm that a section of my right hon. Friend's speech dealt with the Open University? Does he agree about the great value of the university in educational terms to this country and, indeed, to the rest of the world, and think that it should have a high priority in Government policy?
  Mr. Short: Indeed, like my hon. Friend, I listened to my right hon. Friend's speech, which I thought excellent,.especially the passage which dealt with
  264
  the Open University, particularly since my wife obtained a degree at that university I thought it was a first-rate speech.
  Sir David Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the educational advisory services duplicate the work of Her Majesty's inspectors and overlap with the work of the county education officers, and that there is great scope for a saving in money and staff on some services? Does he agree that many of those engaged in those services would do much better work as teachers?
  Mr. Short: Speaking personally— my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is not here and therefore I am venturing my own opinion— I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I think there is a case for examining the whole field of advisory services, and also a case for local authorities getting together to provide advisory services. There is a good deal in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said.

  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  Mrs. Colquhounasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint an expert on parliamentary government to the Central Policy Review Staff.
  Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) on 6th March.
  Mrs. Colquhoun: Is it not time that an expert took a long, hard look at some of the existing parliamentary anomalies, such as the "usual channels ", appointments by the Whips' Office to Select Committees, and the bad old continuing practice of appointing only one woman to Committees, and so on? Should not such a person come up with a reform which allows democratic worker participation in the running of the House? Is it not nonsense that although we rank as Members of Parliament for worker participation in industry, we accept such churlish and unsatisfactory situations for ourselves as back benchers?
  Mr. Short: I should hate to inflict on the Central Policy Review Staff a "long, hard look" at the "usual channels ". This is not a matter for the review staff. It is certainly a matter for the Procedure Committee. If my hon. Friend would care to come and discuss the matter with me, I should be happy to talk to her. I think we are arriving at a point where in a Session of Parliament in the near future the Procedure Committee could examine our procedure depth.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: In addition to taking such an expert look at these anomalies— I have the utmost sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mrs. Colquhoun)— does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that since two new Parliaments are about to be set up we shall require two such experts, and that because of those new Parliaments it may be necessary to eliminate some of the anomalies?
  Mr. Short: I hope that before very long two elected assemblies will be set up in the United Kingdom. I also hope that they will profit from the very long experience of this Parliament.
  Mr. Lawson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an expert on parliamentary government, whether or not he is a member of the CPRS, would be able to explain that a referendum on the Common Market or on anything else can only be consultative, and not binding? Would it not be helpful for that to be made clear to the public as a whole?
  Mr. Short: The House will debate that subject today. I have said before, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that the referendum is not binding on Parliament. It cannot be. The Government have agreed that they will accept the result of the referendum. It will be binding on the Government.

  MIDDLE EAST
  Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit the Middle East.
  Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
  266
  My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Huckfield: Did my right hon. Friend note that the discussions which recently took place in Beirut between Lord Carrington, as the political representative of the Conservative Party, and Yasser Arafat, the PLO leader, were followed by a terrorist attack on a Tel Aviv hotel, in which 16 people died? Will he confirm that is not Labour policy to negotiate with terrorist organisations?
  Mr. Short: In fairness to Lord Carrington, there is no connection between the terrorist outbreak and his visit. Also in fairness to the noble Lord, he did not go there to visit Yasser Arafat. He went there to visit Heads of State. I think I am right in saying that while in Beirut Lord Carrington was asked to meet Yasser Arafat.
  Mr. Faulds: Since some of us have had the good opportunity of getting to know Yasser Arafat and his policies, and of appreciating what a social democrat he is, is it not time, since the Prime Minister's contacts in the Middle East seem to be solely Israeli ones, that he should make some effort to get to know some of the Arab Socialist leaders?
  Mr. Short: We tolerate the hon. Gentleman, but it is a bit much to ask us to tolerate his friends as well.
  Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the assurance asked for by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) that it is not the policy of the Government to negotiate with terrorist organisations?
  Mr. Short: The Government stand ready to do anything they can to help in this difficult situation. No one wishes to do or say anything which would make it more difficult.
  Mr. Faulds: That remark was not very helpful. He should remember he is Leader of the House— and deputy leader of our party, God help us.
  Mr. Short: Certainly, the Government condemn terrorist attacks, from whatever quarter they come.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (FACILITIES)
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a further statement about the effect on the House of the unofficial strike by some industrial civil servants.
I must first apologise to the House that the usual arrangements for the supply of papers are subject to delay and restrictions on circulation.
Arrangements have, however, been made for copies of the Order Paper and Notices of Questions, motions and amendments to be available in Vote Office, although later and in more limited numbers than usual. Hansard is not generally available, but copies for reference are available in the Library.
I understand that difficulties have now arisen over postal services. I would therefore advise hon. Members to post their mail at the Parliament Street Post Office or other letter-boxes outside.
I realise that this will cause considerable inconvenience, but I ask for the understanding and co-operation of hon. Members in this difficult situation.
I shall keep the House informed of any fresh developments.
Mr. Peyton: I do not think that there is anything very helpful that anyone can say about the matter, except perhaps to comment that the state we have reached is symptomatic of the degradation into which Parliament and this country have sunk.
Mr. Whitehead: Disregarding that last remark, will my hon. Friend accept that many of us are in extreme difficulties over the mail? If we are being exhorted to post our letters outside the building, may we also collect them from outside the building?
Mr. Short: I shall keep the House informed of any developments. I understand that the postmaster has closed the boxes. Therefore, in order to send their mail, hon. Members will have to post it outside. I regret that very much.
Mr. David Steel: Can the right hon. Gentleman confim that Hansard is being
268
printed, and it is just that copies are not allowed to be delivered to the House?
What is the position over picketing? Am I correct in understanding that when lobbies come to the House they are not allowed to carry banners outside the building, yet the pickets appear to be carrying banners?
Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman's latter point concerning what happens outside the House is for the police, not for me. However, I shall make inquiries about it. I think that the least we say about the printing, the better.
Mrs. Wise: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would be in the best interests of the House, as well as the workers concerned, for him to use any good offices which he may have to encourage a settlement based on the good case that the men have for an increase in their wages? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the men consider that they are exactly the kind of workers that the social contract is supposed to be about—that is, that they are under-paid and are the sort of people to whom we are supposed to give justice? I suggest that that is the most profitable way in which the matter can be pursued.
Mr. Short: Informal discussions are proceeding through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment with the interested parties. I strongly urge the unofficial strikers to follow the advice of their official union leaders, who have adopted a most responsible attitude throughout the negotiations, and to return to work.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman has so far referred to the inconvenience to hon. Members in the dispute. Have he or his colleagues given any thought to the fact that the dispute is a gross interference with the work of Parliament, and that it should be considered from the point of view not only of inconvenience to hon. Members but of their capacity to serve their constituents and the capacity of Parliament to operate freely, which are of such importance to our democracy?
Mr. Short: It would be an exaggeration to say that we have reached that point yet. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be an extremely

269
serious situation if we reached it. But so far, yesterday and today, we have had all the papers necessary for the House and the Committees. They have arrived rather late, and have not been in the usual numbers, but we have achieved that, and we shall continue to try to do so.
Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no hon. Member on either side of the House should do anything to support the action while it is unofficial? But, assuming that it becomes official, will my right hon. Friend see to it that the grievance of the lower-paid workers, whose basic pay is a disgrace to the House and to the country, is remedied through the official channels in the proper way?
Mr. Short: If the dispute became official, the situation would certainly be different. Negotiations are proceeding. It seems to me that it would be useful if I made information on the wage rates received by the unofficial strikers available to the House. I shall see how I can do that.
Sir John Hall: Whilst I do not wish to comment on the merits of the case, if it is true that copies of the Order Paper are being printed but cannot be delivered here because of the action of pickets who are on unofficial strike, is not that in effect a breach of privilege?
Mr. Short: Privilege is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and the Committee of Privileges. So far, the Order Paper has been made available.
Mr. Tinn: None of us would want to interfere with normal negotiating procedures, but is it not a pity that the workers concerned, whose work we normally appreciate and on which we depend so much, did not make their grievances known to hon. Members before taking strike action? I am sure that hon. Members would have considered them sympathetically and have given such support as they might have been able to give before the men took the drastic action of withdrawing their labour.
Mr. Short: I do not think that unofficial action of the present kind will help in any way. The negotiations are going on. I believe that the best interests of
270
everybody and of the House will be served by trying to expedite those discussions as much as we can.
Mr. Mawby: Will the Leader of the House first pass on the thanks of the House to the staff, who always turn up trumps to give us an Order Paper of some sort? They must be under tremendous pressure, and we should thank them.
With regard to the postal arrangements, will the right hon. Gentleman make certain that we know whether our mail is likely to be delivered here? Our constituents will expect that it has been delivered to us. Can other arrangements be made if necessary, so that we can at least collect our mail and do not have irate constituents under the false impression that we have received it?
Thirdly, is the right hon. Gentleman making sure that outside individuals and bodies which are drastically affected by our deliberations can still obtain the necessary papers, now that they are not being delivered to the House? If not, can they be told where they can obtain them instead?
Mr. Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point, and when the strike is over I shall find a more appropriate and more adequate way of thanking the staff than is possible now, for reasons which the hon. Gentleman understands.
I shall make inquiries about the hon. Gentleman's second point and let the House know about the delivery of letters. I am not sure what the position is. It seems to change from hour to hour.
I do not know of any difficulties experienced by outside individuals and bodies, but if hon. Members know of problems in that respect I shall see that those concerned receive copies of the appropriate papers.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose —
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a debate later in which about 60 right hon. and hon. Members will be seeking to catch my eye. We must go on to the next statement.
Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter of privilege; namely, the action of certain public servants and those inciting them to obstruct the work of Parliament—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising his point at the wrong time.

DIRECT GRANT SCHOOLS
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Reg Prentice): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement on the future of the direct grant schools.
The Government have decided that the time has come to implement the pledge in the Labour Party Election Manifesto to stop the present system of direct grant schools. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are making this statement to indicate the action we propose to take.
Grant to schools which are unwilling to enter the maintained school system or which it is not practicable to absorb into the system will be phased out, starting in September 1976. Arrangements to safeguard the interests of pupils already in the schools will be made. Meanwhile, I do not propose to make any change in the level of grant.
This decision follows necessarily from the Government's commitment to end all forms of selection for secondary education. The direct grant schools have made an important contribution to the national system of secondary education while that was organised on selective lines, and some of them provided places needed by local education authorities. I hope that as many of them as possible will accept that they can best continue to serve the public by making the adjustments necessary to become an integral part of the local system of comprehensive education as maintained schools. I hope also that local education authorities will recognise the advantages of such a solution and will do all they can to facilitate the transition for schools which are willing to make it.
As a first step, we shall discuss the future arrangements in greater detail with the representatives of the direct grant schools and of the local education authorities. In particular, we shall discuss, in relation to schools willing to become maintained, the problems of capital debt and sub-standard buildings, matters arising from the need to protect the salary and conditions of service of existing staff, and any special issues that might arise
272
because of the existence of a boarding element at some of the schools. We shall also clarify with them the procedure for phasing out the grants and related features of the present system.
Subsequently the two Departments will get in touch with individual schools, and their local education authorities, to enable decisions to be reached about their future as soon as possible. I believe that it would be generally agreed that from the point of view of all concerned it is now desirable to move as speedily as possible to avoid a protracted period of uncertainty. My aim will be to help the schools reach a decision in principle by the end of the summer term.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the Secretary of State realise that his statement today will be treated by the educational world as an unprecedented step of educational vandalism, that it will lower educational standards, that it will decrease parental choice and that, by driving many direct grant schools into the independent sector, it will deprive parents of modest means of educational opportunity?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman give us up-to-date figures of the amounts which parents save the taxpayer by paying fees, which may well be more than £20 million a year? Where will he find that? Where will he find the £3 million to pay off the debt of the Roman Catholic direct grant schools, and where will he find the necessary money to provide places for these children where the schools go independent?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman note that the Opposition pledge to reopen the direct grant school list still stands and that we reaffirm it today? Will he note also that we shall rebuild the bridge between the independent and the maintained sector which he has so rashly sought to blow up today, and that we shall see that the schools are not only restored but restored on a legal basis which will make it impossible for them to be destroyed again by ministerial edict?
Mr. Prentice: The House will note the hon. Gentleman's pledge, as he calls it. The only appropriate answer to that is that chance will be a fine thing. The fact is that this is a logical part of the move from a selective secondary system to a

273
comprehensive secondary system. I submit that it always has been an anomaly that there should be subsidies out of public funds to what basically are independent schools. But that becomes all the more anomalous if such a subsidy is continued indefinitely after the Government and this House have decided on a national policy of moving towards the comprehensive system. That does not reduce standards. The hon. Gentleman knows or ought to know that up and down the country there are thousands of boys and girls getting better opportunities and reaching higher standards because we have moved along the road towards a comprehensive system.
As for the financial implications, there are both savings to public expenditure and costs to public expenditure. There will be a saving of the money spent on the grant. There will be costs involved in the sense that local authorities will need in some cases to provide places at the ratepayers' expense which at the moment they get by a different route. There will be a number of items on both sides of the balance sheet, difficult to assess in detail. All the studies that we have made suggest that there will be a very small net balance— either a net cost or a net saving— one way or the other.
Mr. Marks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Government supporters welcome his speedy implementation of the programme on which we all fought and won the General Election? Will he continue to stress that direct grant schools still have a choice— that they do not have to go independent— and will he remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there are parts of the Labour Party Manifesto referring to the charitable status and tax relief of the independent schools?
Mr. Prentice: On my hon. Friend's latter point, yes, we have this in mind. My hon. Friend will not expect me to enlarge on that today. Certainly it is our intention that this clear choice should be presented to the schools. We hope that each school will be able to make a decision in principle by the end of the summer and choose whether to go into the maintained system, which is the route that we would prefer for as many of them as possible, or whether to go fully independent, in which case the grant will be phased out
274
over a number of years in the way that I have described.
Sir G. Sinclair: Will the Secretary of State accept that the Opposition believe that this will be a great cutting down of educational opportunities for many bright boys and girls and for many families of slender means throughout the country? Will he accept also that this will bring great anxiety to parents, great dislocation in the schools, and very great dislocation to local authorities which may have to face another reorganisation without any money to spend on it?
Mr. Prentice: When speaking of standards, the hon. Gentleman makes the same kind of assumption as has been made over many years in the changeover from a selective to a comprehensive system. The fears to which he refers have proved to be unfounded over the years. During the 10 years or so in which this country has been moving from a selective system to what is now 60 per cent. comprehensive in England and 85 per cent. comprehensive in Wales, academic standards have been rising. I see that as part of the process leading on to higher standards and greater opportunities for more children, and not fewer.
As for the hon. Gentleman's reference to the dislocation of local education authorities, I think that many of them will welcome the opportunity because they will rightly regard the continued existence of this sector as meaning that their plans to go comprehensive cannot be fully realised unless the process is complete.
Mr. Christopher Price: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his announcement will be welcome not only to all Government supporters but to many Conservative chairmen of local education authorities—
Mr. Cormack: Rubbish.
Mr. Price: —who have been trying to go comprehensive for some time, and who put the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) in his place when he tried to lead them into revolt a few weeks ago?
Since there will be complications here, will my right hon. Friend consider issuing model schemes to local education authorities so that the experience of those direct

275
grant schools— especially those Catholic schools— which have already made plans to go comprehensive may be available to all local education authorities in the attempt to integrate direct grant schools with the comprehensive system?
Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend was right to make his first point. The ticking-off which the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is reported to have had from leaders of Conservative groups in education throughout the country was no surprise to those of us who realise that among those Conservatives who understand education there are some who are becoming increasingly convinced of the need for comprehensive reorganization, and many have been getting on with it.
I shall consider the second point made by my hon. Friend. What I have in mind is that within a few weeks, following discussions with local education authorities and the schools themselves, I shall issue to schools and authorities more details of the way in which this transaction can be effected.
Mr. Freud: We on the Liberal bench accept the implementation of the Labour Party's manifesto as it relates to direct grant schools, and we welcome the promised safeguards for existing pupils.
Mr. Cormack: Resign.
Mr. Freud: I wonder whether the Secretary of State will answer three questions. First, will he give some guarantee about the continued academic excellence of those direct grant schools which go comprehensive? Secondly, will he ensure that local education authorities will have sufficient funds to take over the direct grant schools? Finally, when he says that his aim will be to help schools reach a decision in principle, will he reconsider his dateline, because many schools will want to think carefully about going independent?
Mr. Prentice: On the first point, I see no reason to assume any decline in the standard of academic excellence in any of these schools as a result of this decision — no reason at all. On the second point, we shall be discussing with local education authorities within the next few weeks the details of the processes by which they will be encouraged and helped to absorb
276
these schools and fit them in with their local plans. We shall be discussing the financial aspects, among other things.
On the question of the dateline, I see no reason why each school should not decide in principle by the end of this summer which route it wants to take. There may be a need for a further period for fitting in with local plans. That will depend partly on the pace of local authorities on going comprehensive, because we want these schools to come into the local authority system wherever appropriate as part of a comprehensive system. There may be some delay in the date on which they become integrated because of the pace at which the local authority concerned is making its own plans.
Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Government Members will welcome his statement, but that for a number of direct grant schools there is a particular problem because of the nature of their finances and the way in which they are associated with religious societies? Can he assure the House that in his negotiations on this matter of comprehensive schools he will bear that point very much in mind and treat the schools generously because of the time, dedication and money spent by many religious societies in giving education to many who would not otherwise have had it?
Mr. Prentice: Those points will be taken into account. Many of the direct grant schools, particularly those associated with religious foundations, the majority of which I hope will come into the maintained system, have a certain amount of accumulated debt. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said it amounted to £3 million, but the estimate that I have had is £2½million. This would need to be serviced, and it would be one element to be taken into account in the pluses and minuses of the financial balance to which I referred earlier.
Mr. van Straubenzee: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that one of the results of his announcement this afternoon will be that he will have ranged against him the full gamut of education opinion represented on these benches, including those who, against some hostility, have stood up for existing and future comprehensive schools, both on the ground of standards and because he has

277
no additional finance available for increasing these standards?
As there has been some reference to what was a private meeting, and a report of a private meeting, at which certain things are alleged to have been said to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), will the right hon. Gentleman take it from one who was at that meeting that there was no criticism at all from Labour and Conservative Members present of my hon. Friend's stance on comprehensive schools?
Mr. Prentice: I am sorry to hear that, because the meeting was obviously less enlightened than I was given to understand.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Prentice: I shall not withdraw.
Be that as it may, there are many within the Conservative Party, among whom I should have included the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), who have shown a sympathetic and constructive attitude towards comprehensive reorganisation but they seem to fail to realise that as long as this selective system exists side by side with the maintained comprehensive system the latter cannot be fully comprehensive. It is essential to the completion of a comprehensive system that the direct grant system as we know it should be phased out.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw what has been shown to be a completely inaccurate account of the private meeting to which he referred?
Mr. Prentice: I was giving the Conservative Party representatives there more credit than they apparently deserved. I understood that many of them were saying that in their localities they were working at their own comprehensive schemes and believed in them. If that is not so I am sorry to hear it and would certainly withdraw what I said in the sense that I may have been misinformed, but I wish that the original accounts were true.
I have met a great number of Conservative members of local education committees throughout the country, including more than one chairman, who have said that when the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)
278
was Secretary of State for Education and Science she turned down their plans for comprehensive education and have asked whether if they re-submitted them to me I would have another look at them because they were sure that the right hon. Lady was wrong in turning them down in the past.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I say that I accept that generous withdrawal.

GRANT-AIDED SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): With permission, I should like to make a statement about my proposals for the future of the grant to the grant-aided secondary schools in Scotland.
I have decided that in 1975–76 the grant should be of the same amount as for 1974–75, subject, as has always been the case, to limitation to the actual amount of deficit in the case of any particular school. Phasing out will begin in 1976–77 and will extend over a period to be decided in the light of the circumstances revealed by discussion between my Department and the schools and the education authorities concerned.
The decision to phase grant out represents the implementation of longstanding Government policy. By delaying phasing out until the beginning of the 1976–77 school session we are providing ample opportunity for discussion with the managers of the schools and with the education authorities concerned on the most appropriate arrangements to be made for the future.
Discussions will be put in hand immediately. I expect that it will be necessary for separate meetings to take place with individual schools or groups of schools and that meetings with the schools will precede meetings with individual education authorities. My hope is that it will be found possible for the schools to be fully integrated in the public system of education as comprehensive schools but I have not made up my mind in advance on what the best arrangements might be.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is not the right hon. Gentleman's statement simply death by strangulation of these schools? Does

279
he realise that he bears a heavy responsibility indeed for butchering a very important and respected sector of Scottish education. I repeat the pledge given by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) that we shall reopen the list of grant-aided schools.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. First, is he aware that in Edinburgh alone about 500 parents have been forced to apply for local authority school places for their children? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if this number increases, as it will following his statement, local authorities, as they have said, will not be able to meet such continued demand? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the State system will be able to cope? Second, does he realise that in England and Wales 25 per cent. of parents pay full fees whereas in Scotland the figure is 98 per cent.? Those parents will bear the full brunt of the Government's vindictiveness. In these changed circumstances, brought about by the Government, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider introducing a fees remission scheme in Scotland for parents who have children at these schools?
Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should know that it is not helpful to compare the system in Scotland with that in England. In Scotland 98 per cent. of pupils go to local education authority schools. The number of places available in the grant-aided schools for local education authority pupils is about 1,850, 1,000 of whom are in one school which is virtually a local authority school, Marr College in Troon. When the hon. Member speaks about the pressure on Edinburgh he should appreciate that the figure is about 495 firm applications—
Mr. Teddy Taylor: So far.
Mr. Ross: —and 195 are in respect of primary places. Judging from the statement made yesterday by the director of education in Edinburgh, there is not the alarming prospect which the hon. Gentleman suggests. The authority is well able to cope. When we bear in mind that the school population in Edinburgh is 87,500 we begin to get the thing into perspective. There is no justification for the kind of remarks the hon. Gentleman has made. The hon. Gentleman knows
280
that a fees remission scheme does not exist in Scotland. Whether anything can be done on these lines as the grant is tapered off will be subject to discussion.
Mr. David Steel: In supporting in principle what the Secretary of State has announced, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that there are many parents in Scotland whose children are at present in direct grant schools and wish to see an end to the dual system of education? Will he also recognise that in fairness he must produce a scheme for those who had already entered their children before this change in policy was announced and may suffer hardship as a result of the freezing of the grant?
Mr. Ross: I took note of that point in my answer to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). What we have to bear in mind when people talk about freedom of choice is that this freedom of choice is not available for 98 per cent. of Scottish children. When choice is limited by finance it becomes a matter of subsidised and selective privilege, which is quite outwith the whole traditions of Scottish education.
Mr. Robin F. Cook: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many members of Edinburgh Corporation will welcome his statement, particularly since they have been striving to establish a comprehensive system in the face of a substantial grammar school system which has been kept out with the maintained sector? Will he further accept that there may be building consequences for Edinburgh Corporation as a result of his decision, even if all the grant-aided schools were to enter the State sector, because they are not in the right place? Will he therefore give an assurance that he will look sympathetically at any applications for borrowing consent from local authorities which are faced with the necessity for further building in seeking to take full opportunity of his announcement?
Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend will realise that we are aware of all these matters. We are aware of the support we have in Edinburgh generally for what we are doing. All these relevant consequences will be taken into account.
Mr. Fairbairn: Will the Secretary of State appreciate that, contrary to what he

281
has said, in Perthshire there is a free choice to all children to go to a direct grant school? How does he accommodate his statement with Article 22 of the Declaration of Human Rights signed in Paris on 12th December 1948 by Clement Attlee on behalf of the people of this country—that every parent shall have the prime right to select the method of his or her child's education?
Mr. Buchan: Particularly those who live in castles.
Mr. Ross: Instead of looking at that declaration the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to see what was written in Scottish Education Acts.
Mrs. Bain: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the sudden exodus from the House when he rose to make his statement was not a reflection upon him but merely reflected the general lack of interest in Scottish affairs which is so often shown in this House? [Interruption.] Is he aware that we on the Scottish National Party bench welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has adopted the idea of the Scottish National Party in phasing out grant-aided schools? [Interruption.] Will he now say when he will announce the timetable for the phasing-out period and thus reduce the uncertainty which so many parents feel?
Mr. Ross: My statement is designed to remove uncertainty as quickly as possible. May I add that I had great difficulty in hearing what the hon. Lady had to say and that that was probably related to a lack of interest in what she was saying.
Mr. Buchan: Was my right hon. Friend as surprised as I to learn that we had adopted SNP policy, since our policy was enunciated many years ago when we were in Opposition? Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that all concerned with Scottish education will be delighted by his statement? Will he confirm that what we are doing is restoring to Scotland the traditional form of education? Will he also confirm that the choice being referred to here is no choice for over 90 per cent. of the people but is one allowed only by a process of selection, a process involving money, or a process involving living in a castle— like the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn)?
Mr. Ross: I agree with my hon. Friend about the traditional aims of Scottish education and the traditional claims of Scottish education. I have always found these to be consistent.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: How will it help advance Scottish education by imposing — as the Secretary of State is doing— a policy which will produce freedom of choice in education only for the rich? Why has he failed so miserably even to be able to give the same assurance as was given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to the effect that protection would be afforded to those parents caught in the changeover? Does he not agree that it is crazy to take steps to drive children into the State sector at a time when he has imposed the most savage cuts on new school building, in 1975–76, that we have ever had in Scotland's history? Does that not show, again, that as a Secretary of State he is a complete washout?
Mr. Ross: I am sure that the House will be delighted to know that the Scottish education building programme is higher this year than it has even been.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: That is a lie.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Did I hear the hon. Member call the Secretary of State a liar?
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I referred to the statement as a lie and I should not have done. It was simply because I had an answer to a Written Question a few days ago from the Secretary of State which gave the relevant figures. I unreservedly withdraw my remark, but I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the answer he gave me a week ago.
Mr. Ross: That is an unreserved withdrawal according to the hon. Member. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish building programme—
Mr. Teddy Taylor: What about starts?
Mr. Ross: I am telling the hon. Gentleman what we are providing for educational building in Scotland in the current year. It is higher than it was last year or the year before. We have also this year to undertake a quarter of last year's building programme which was pushed forward by the Tory Government into this

283
year as part of their sleight of hand in cutting down on educational building. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that what has been said is true and that 98 per cent. of Scottish schoolchildren do not have freedom of choice. There is no justification for subsidising this privileged sector.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (FACILITIES)
Mr. Grylls: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
" the failure of the Government to resolve the strike by Government employees in the Palace of Westminster resulting in the grave and increasing threat to the continuation of the work of Parliament and the ability of Members of Parliament to do their duties."
I gave you notice, Mr. Speaker, that I intended at the earliest opportunity to do so.
I submit that this is a specific matter, and I hope that all hon. Members will agree that this is the case. There is today a direct threat to our ability to do our jobs in this House. At the moment that threat is every bit as real as Hitler's bombs which destroyed this Chamber in 1941.
This is clearly an important matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council in his statement earlier this afternoon admitted that Members' mail was being interfered with because the Post Office van was not coming into or going out of the Palace. This means that the matter must be dealt with very quickly indeed. Hon. Members are unable to deal with their constituents. They cannot receive letters from them, and they are unable to answer urgent queries if they cannot rely on getting their mail. Therefore, this matter is important in order to ensure that Members may discharge their duties.
I submit also, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is extremely urgent because the situation is deteriorating as we sit here. The Vote Office, as anyone who has been there knows, is in total chaos. Rubbish is not being collected. Even the lights are going out in many parts of the House of
284
Commons. No doubt, the lights will soon go out altogether.
The matter is also urgent because I understand that the milk float has been refused admission into the Palace of Westminster. In addition, I understand that it is only a question of time before the plumbing in the Palace of Westminster collapses altogether.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, mat I have shown that this is a specific matter, that it is important and urgent, and I therefore hope that you will allow this application so that the siege of Westminster can be raised as quickly as possible.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for having given me notice some hours ago of his intention to raise this matter. I have listened carefully to what he said. I also listened to the exchanges which took place earlier in the House.
It is not for me to comment on the facts which the hon. Member has alleged or stated. I have simply to decide whether I think it is appropriate to debate this matter under Standing Order No. 9. I do not think so. I am afraid that the hon. Member has not convinced me. I therefore reject his application.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Cormack: I wish to raise a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker; namely, the action of certain public servants and those inciting them to frustrate the work of Parliament. I seek to move that this matter be committed to the Committee of Privileges.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Is this a point of order?
Mr. Skinner: Yes, it is precisely to the point. With respect to the suggested breach of privilege of this House by people going on strike, before you consider referring this matter to the Committee of Privileges I hope that you will consider the fact that whenever there is a strike of industrial workers or any kind of workers, in some cases marginally but in other cases more extremely, they affect the work of this place, as indeed, they affect the work of people elsewhere. Therefore, one could argue quite properly that when the last Tory Government

285
engaged in conflict and confrontation with the postal workers in 1971, when those postal workers were out on strike for seven weeks— in which I encouraged them, incidentally— that was in itself no different in content or quality from this matter, and I am suggesting—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I shall consider this matter. If I decide that a motion should not have precedence, the hon. Member's remarks are not necessary. If I decide that it shall have precedence, a motion will be moved and the hon. Member will be able to make his speech then. I will consider the matter and rule tomorrow.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Ordered,
That the draft Royal Mint Trading Fund Order 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.— [Mr. Edward Short.]

SOCIAL SECURITY (AGE OF ENTITLEMENT TO RETIREMENT PENSION)
4.15 p.m.
Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Social Security Act 1973 by reducing to sixty the age at which men become entitled to payment of retirement pension.
It is no joy for me to have to introduce again this Bill which seeks to promote basic equality between the sexes by reducing the pensionable age of men. I had hoped that the Government's new pension proposals, to which they refer as being the basis of a pension pattern which could be with us for 20 or 30 years, would include some provision for a more realistic pensionable age which would have made the introduction of this Bill completely unnecessary.
I appreciate that this Bill has no chance whatsoever of finding its way on to the statute book but I feel that it is important to try to persuade the Government, even at this late stage, to take some steps or to make some commitment, even if it is a long-term commitment, in this direction.
286
The Bill is not designed merely to reduce the pensionable age of men to 60 and to leave it at that. Apart from anything else, the cost of such a move would be prohibitive. The Secretary of State estimates that the cost would be about £1,440 million, although the actual figure is arguable. It depends on the take-up— the proportion of men retiring at 60— though I admit that it would undoubtedly involve a very large sum of money.
What I propose is merely that a common pensionable basic age should be established for both men and women at 60, coupled with a retirement range between 60 and 70, so that a man or a woman could choose to retire at any point within this range at the pension level appropriate to the age of retirement. This arrangement would combine the best of both worlds. On the one hand, it would cater for the men and women who want to retire at 60, 61 or 62.
Since I have been involved in this matter of equating pensionable ages and producing a more flexible system, I have received well over 2,000 letters on this issue, many from young people and from trade unions, but the great bulk, of course, from men and their wives in the mining, quarrying and steel industries who feel that at about 60 they have contributed enough to the national output and that they wish to retire.
Of course, 60 is not a particularly early age for retirement. In many other countries 60 is already a base retiring age, and in one or two countries it is as low as 55. This system would not only have advantage for those who wish to retire early. It would also provide an incentive for men and women who want to continue working. They would be able to retire at 66, 67, 68, 69 or 70 with a considerably higher pension. This could affect the whole of the take-up and retirement pattern, and, in fact, in the end would not only provide a situation in which the cost would be nil but could provide an additional source of manpower which would be highly desirable.
We who have considered the manpower situation realise that we are an ageing society. Thirty years ago there were six times as many people working as there were in retirement. Now I am told the ratio is 3½ to one. At some time very near to the year 2000 there will be as many people in retirement in this country

287
as those who are working. It is, therefore, desirable from that point of view to introduce a system in which there is an incentive for those who want to continue working as well as for those who wish to retire.
The obvious argument is the actuarial one. The present system is actuarial nonsense. A woman retires at 60 with an expectation of life of 20 years. A man retires at 65 with an expectation of life of 12 years. This means that a woman will receive at least £13,900 in pension, whereas a man will receive about £8,500. although a woman will have paid about £100 less into the scheme if she has been in it since 1948. This is actuarial nonsense.
The only attempt to justify this was in the Richard Crossman appendix. Many of my colleagues who are still in the actuarial world believe this to be nonsense. That appendix is meaningless to them.
There are great humanitarian arguments for my Bill. There are also the basic arguments for equality between the sexes. I am convinced that the Government are anxious to make some move towards flexibility and equality between the sexes. I only hope that the introduction of the Bill will play a small part in helping the Government to find a way. There is no time more apt, perhaps, than the present for this basic step towards equality. After all, this is International Women's Year. I have great sympathy with women all over the world who are staking their claims to equality. It must be remembered that sexual equality, like sex itself, is essentially a two-way process.
4.42 p.m.
Sir David Renton: I rise to—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposing the Bill?
Sir D. Renton: I am opposing the Bill, Mr. Speaker. I do so because I consider that it is ill-founded, unsupportable and quite unacceptable.
The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) said that he wished the matter to be given long-term consideration, but I suggest to the House that with every year that passes the case for the Bill is likely to be weakened, because men are taking more care of themselves, they are being better treated, they are living longer, and they are remaining more active.
Men and women have it in common that they are all as old as their hearts and their arteries. There are old young men and there are young old men. It is in the national interest that we should not raise false hopes of idleness in late middle age. The House should make it abundantly clear that we hone that men will go on living longer and living more and more active lives as they get older.
An hon. Member put forward such a weak case that I hope that the House will reject it. I do not think it is necessary for me to labour the matter further.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 106.

Division No. 140.]

AYES

[4.23 p.m.

Allaun, Frank

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whlteh)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Anderson, Donald

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Beith, A. J.

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Hardy, Peter

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Dempsey, James

Hatton, Frank

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Henderson, Douglas

Bradley, Tom

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Hooley, Frank

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Evans, John (Newton)

Huckfield, Les

Canavan, Dennis

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Carmlchael, Neil

Faulds, Andrew

Hunter, Adam

Carter, Ray

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Cartwright, John

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Janner, Greville

Clemitson. Ivor

Flannery, Martin

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Cohen, Stanley

Fletcher Ted (Darlington)

Kaufman, Gerald

Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

Forrester, John

Kelley, Richard

Conlan, Bernard

Freud, Clement

Kilfedder, James

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Kinnock, Nell

Cronin, John

George, Bruce

Lamble, David

Cryer, Bob

Graham, Ted

Lamond, James

Lee, John

Radice, Giles

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

Reid, George

Tierney, Sydney

Lipton, Marcus

Richardson, Miss Jo

Torney, Tom

Litterick, Tom

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Urwin, T. W.

Loyden, Eddie

Roderick, Caerwyn

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

McCartney, Hugh

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

McNamara, Kevin

Rooker, J. W.

Ward, Michael

Madden, Max

Roper, John

Watkins, David

Magee. Bryan

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Watt, Hamish

Mahon, Simon

Sandelson, Neville

Weetch, Ken

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Sedgemore, Brian

Weitzman, David

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Selby, Harry

Welsh, Andrew

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Silverman, Julius

Whitehead, Phillip

Newens, Stanley

Skinner, Dennis

Whitlock, William

Noble, Mike

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Wigley, Dafydd

Oakes, Gordon

Snape, Peter

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

O'Halloran, Michael

Spriggs, Leslie

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Stallard, A. W.

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Palmer, Arthur

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Pardoe, John

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Park, George

Stott, Roger

Young, David (Bolton E)

Pavitt, Laurie

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Pendry, Tom

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Penhaligon, David

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Mr. Michael English and

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Thompson. George

Mrs. Ann Taylor.

NOES

Alison, Michael

Goodhart, Philip

Nelson, Anthony

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Goodhew, Victor

Onslow, Cranley

Arnold, Tom

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Page, John (Harrow West)

Bell, Ronald

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Bitten, John

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Biggs-Davison, John

Harvle Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Blaker, Peter

Havers, Sir Michael

Raison, Timothy

Brittan, Leon

Hayhoe, Barney

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Brotherton, Michael

Howe, Rt Hn Sir Geoffrey

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Burden, F. A.

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Carlisle, Mark

James, David

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Channon, Paul

Jessel, Toby

Rost, Petar (SE Derbyshire)

Churchill, W. S.

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Sainsbury, Tim

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Jopling, Michael

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Kershaw, Anthony

Shersby, Michael

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Silvester, Fred

Cope, John

Knight, Mrs Jill

Speed, Keith

Costain, A. P.

Lane, David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutstord)

Lawrence, Ivan

Sproat, lain

Durant, Tony

Le Marchant, Spencer

Stanbrook, Ivor

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Loveridge, John

Stanley, John

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Stradling Thomas, J.

Elliott, Sir William

Macfariane, Nell

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Fairbairn, Nicholas

MacGregor, John

Townsend, Cyril D.

Fairgrieve, Russell

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Wall, Patrick

Farr, John

Mates, Michael

Walters, Dennis

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Mather, Carol

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Mawby, Ray

Wiggin, Jerry

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Mayhew, Patrick

Winterton, Nicholas

Fookes, Miss Janet

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Fox, Marcus

Monro, Hector

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Montgomery, Fergus

Younger, Hon George

Fry, Peter

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Mr. Percy Grieve and

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Mr. Patrick Cormack.

Glyn, Dr Alan

Neave, Airey

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gwilym Roberts, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mrs. Maureen Colquhoun, Mrs. Lena Jeger, Mrs. Millie Miller, Miss Jo Richardson, Mrs. Ann Taylor, and Mrs. Audrey Wise.

SOCIAL SECURITY (AGE OF ENTITLEMENT TO RETIREMENT PENSION)
Mr. Gwilym Roberts accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Social Security Act 1973 by reducing to sixty the age at which men become entitled to payment of retirement pension; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11th July and to be printed. [Bill 105.]

EEC MEMBERSHIP (REFERENDUM)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pendry.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Before we embark on the Adjournment debate, I have a statement to read from Mr. Speaker stating that it may help the House if I remind hon. Members of the ruling on 3rd February when devolution was similarly discussed on an Adjournment motion.
Standing Order No. 16 gives Mr. Speaker discretion in an Adjournment debate to disregard to some extent the practice which prohibits reference to matters requiring legislative remedy if he feels that the enforcement of the rule would unduly restrict discussion.
As Mr. Speaker reminded the House, his predecessors and he himself have considered the prohibition to apply principally to half-hour Adojurnment debates. It would scarcely be possible to exclude from discussion the fact that legislation on the subject of our debate today will ultimately be necessary to implement the proposals. Mr. Speaker therefore states that the occupant of the Chair will intervene only if an hon. Member makes direct reference to the detailed provisions of any future Bill, but it will be in order to discuss alternative methods of conducting the referendum and the manner in which any question is to be put. Mr. Speaker thinks that this arrangement worked to the general satisfaction of the House on the previous occasion and hopes that the House will agree that it is the only sensible course to obtain today.
4.35 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Whatever view we may take on Britain's membership of the European Community, I hope that we would all agree that this is much the most important issue that has faced this country for many years. Whether we decide to stay in or to come out, the effects on our economy, on our political and parliamentary systems, on our influence in the world and, indeed, perhaps eventually on our whole way of
292
life will be profound not just for ourselves, but for future generations.
How should a decision of this importance have been taken? The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) had it right when he said that such a decision should be taken only with the full-hearted consent of Parliament and the British people. In our system we accept decisions with which we do not agree, but only if we are satisfied that they have been arived at fairly and democratically.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: In Parliament.
Mr. Short: Unfortunately, the last Government's handling of the European issue did not match their previous promises. They had no mandate to take us in, merely to negotiate— "nothing more, nothing less ". The result is that the consent of the British people has not, in fact, been secured. The issue continues to divide the country. The decision to go in has not yet been accepted.
That is the essence of the case for having a referendum. Only by means of a referendum can we find out whether the British people do or do not consent to our continued membership. A General Election could not give us this answer, because this is an issue within the parties, not between them.
How, for example, would a Conservative supporter opposed to our membership have recorded his view in the last two elections? [An HON. MEMBER: "Vote Labour."] That is quite right. One former Conservative recorded his view most appropriately, but a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite who took his view did not, I believe, follow his example.
The country has not yet had an opportunity to say whether we wish to be in or out. For an issue of this unique magnitude, that is simply not good enough.
I understand and respect the view of those devoted to this House and to the sovereignty of Parliament who argue that a referendum is alien to the principles and practices of parliamentary democracy. I respect their view, but I do not agree with it. I will tell the House why.
This referendum is wholly consistent with parliamentary sovereignty. The

293
Government will be bound by its result, but Parliament, of course, cannot be bound by it. Although one would not expect hon. Members to go against the wishes of the people, they will remain free to do so.
One of the characteristics of this Parliament is that it can never divest itself of its sovereignty. The referendum itself cannot be held without parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation. Nor, if the decision is to come out of the Community, could that decision be made effective without further legislation. I do not, therefore, accept that the sovereignty of Parliament is affected in any way by the referendum. Some argue that decisions on national issues should be taken wholly and exclusively by Members of the two Houses of Parliament. In general, we would all agree with that. But Governments are elected on their whole programme and it would be neither appropriate nor practicable to have referenda on individual parts of the package. Moreover, if Parliament's decisions are found to be wrong, a subsequent Parliament can reverse them, as we have been doing since February last year. But that surely does not apply to this matter.
Our membership of the European Community is a unique issue because it profoundly affects our relationships with other countries as well as our whole standing and status in the world. It is unique because in time it could become almost irreversible, not for legal reasons but because, as we are already finding, the longer we stay in the harder it will be to come out, and the harder it will be to find any adequate design for living outside.
In preparing the White Paper we have taken note of the views of those who have been consulted informally. I have had discussions with representatives of all the parties represented in the House, with Members representing a variety of different points of view, with the three major parties outside Parliament and with representatives of what are likely to be the two main campaigning groups. Having discussed the referendum with so many people of differing points of view, it is not surprising to me that the White Paper is not likely to satisfy everyone. But some of the proposals are still tentative.
294
As the Prime Minister has said, it is a White Paper with very green edges.
This debate is not about renegotiation, but, of course, the progress of renegotiation, as well as the passage of the Bill, will determine the timing of the referendum. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are today in Dublin on what I hope will be the final stage of renegotiation. Our aim is to introduce the Referendum Bill before the Easter Recess with a view to obtaining the Royal Assent by the third week in May. This would enable the referendum to be held in the second half of June.
The basic approach of the Government in making their proposals has been to stick as closely as possible to existing electoral machinery, evolved and tested over many years. To do so offers the best guarantee of efficiency, fairness and public acceptability. Familiarity and confidence in efficiency and fairness are more likely to ensure a good turnout and, what is tremendously important, to secure the widest acceptance of the result by the British people. We have, therefore, been prepared to depart from normal electoral practice only where there is good reason for doing so.
I turn now to the proposals in detail.
Mr. Alexander Fletcher: In view of the last remark made by the Lord President and as we, as a Parliament, will have to decide this issue, will he tell us why, in using the normal electoral machinery, we should not know precisely, each and every one of us, what are our constituents' views on this matter?
Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman interrupted me after I had said, "I turn now to the proposals in detail." I shall deal with that point when I come to it, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
It has been suggested that the verdict of the electorate can hardly be regarded as decisive if there is a very low turnout or if those who do vote in favour of one course or the other do so by only a very narrow margin. There have been suggestions that we should stipulate a minimum poll or a minimum majority for the result to be decisive. Some of the groups I have consulted have been worried by the fact that the result of the poll could, I suppose, in the extreme case, be decided by one vote in many millions. But this

295
would be the case if there were a requirement for a minimum majority.
If there were a minimum majority, there would also be the problem that a clear majority which was less than the minimum would not decide the issue. I am quite sure that the British electorate would find that extremely hard to accept. Also, the idea of stipulating a minimum poll is just as difficult, and could lead to widespread abstention. If we are to have a referendum, I hope that all would agree that we want a high poll, particularly as it is in the national interest to secure the greatest possible degree of acceptance of the result.
Mr. Keith Speed: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's last statement, and accepting the referendum as important, may I ask why, therefore, cannot British citizens working in Europe and people on holiday have the vote?
Mr. Short: I have said that I shall be discussing all the details. If hon. Members will contain themselves, perhaps at the end of my speech, if I have not covered specific points, they will then ask me about them.
The question on the ballot paper has attracted a good deal of attention. The Government are not firmly committed to the proposal in the White Paper, but we believe that the question should be as clear and simple as possible and should require a "Yes" or "No" answer. There have been suggestions that even with the simplest possible question the precise wording on the ballot paper may have an effect on the way people vote. But there is no reliable evidence to support that view. In responding to any opinion poll, people may reply differently to the same question raised in a different way, but there is a world of difference between how people respond to an unexpected question from a pollster stopping them in the street or knocking at the door and how they respond to a question the text of which they have known about and been able to think about for several weeks, on a subject which has been a matter of controversy for some years.
Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I accept that there is some truth in what my right hon. Friend is saying— [HON.
296
MEMBERS: "Oh."]—some truth. However, is there not considerable statistical evidence in terms of the recent poll on divorce in Italy, where there was a very long and nationwide campaign, that the result was eventually confused by the fact that people did not understand what the "Yes" or "No" stood for in the question and answer? In this case, it seems to me that the simple answer— without wishing to make a point that is too statistical— is that the two simple, understandable words here about which there are no doubts at all are the words "in" and out ".
Mr. Short: I am glad that my hon. Friend has seen one gleam of truth in what I am saying. However, I am coming to the question of the terminology. There is a world of difference between the pollster putting that kind of question and the question put in a referendum at the end of a long campaign with a great deal of national publicity.
However, the wording will not be decided lightly. The British are a mature electorate and would respond very unfavourably to any suspicion that they were being pushed by the wording of the question into giving the answer that the Government wanted. There are problems of terminology in drafting the question. The word "we" is open to misinterpretation—
Mr. Cormack: Like the French.
Mr. Short: —but it does personalise the issue. The words "Great Britain" leave out Northern Ireland. "United Kingdom" is, of course, the correct term, but it may be an unfamiliar term to some voters. Or again, "Common Market" is a familiar term; "EEC" is less so. But neither is correct. There seems little likelihood of "European Community" being misunderstood. Again, should the word be "think" or "shall ", or should the word be "want" or "agree "? The latter word, "agree ", would certainly appear to be loaded. Finally, and perhaps most difficult of all, should the words be "stay in" "be in "? "Stay in" is consistent with the wording of the Labour Party's October Manifesto and it represents the present state of affairs.—[Interruption.] We try to carry out our promises. "Be in" is superficially more neutral but gives the misleading impression that we have a choice whether to join

297
the Community or not. The issue is whether we stay in or come out.
There is also the problem whether or not the question should be preceded by a preamble, as we have suggested. The Government have promised to consult people in the light of the renegotiated terms of membership. Renegotiation has led or will lead to the referendum. It seems right to us that people should be reminded of this by the preamble, but there is no attempt to influence by reference to a Government recommendation. It would be possible to make the preamble longer by adding, for example, "The United Kingdom has been a member of the European Community since January 1973 ". But clearly we want to avoid overburdening the ballot paper, which must be as simple as possible. However, some reference to the renegotiated terms seems to us to be appropriate.
I turn now to—
Mr. David Steel: Before the Leader of the House leaves the question of renegotiation — he passed over that very quickly earlier — as he says, the word is used on the proposed ballot paper. However, how will it be explained to the public that renegotiation does not stop at any magic point after Dublin and that the Government themselves have indicated that they wish further to discuss the question of the steel terms?
Mr. Short: The Government embarked on a programme of points to be renegotiated. The Prime Minister will be reporting to Parliament on the result of the renegotiation.
I turn now to the register. There have been proposals that the normal parliamentary election register should be extended in a number of ways beyond the inclusion of peers as proposed in the White Paper. For example, it has been proposed that Service voters who are not on the current register should be included. Of course, they have a chance to register. It has also been proposed that those working in other countries should have a postal vote if they apply for it. I recognise the arguments—
Mr. Speed Mr. Speed rose—
Mr. Short: I shall give way in a moment.
I recognise the arguments. No firm decisions have yet been taken on such proposals. There are issues of principle, which apply equally to General Elections, and there are many practical difficulties in trying to establish at short notice some form of supplementary register. Sticking to the current parliamentary register and to our normal electoral practice would make it possible to hold the referendum before the summer holidays. There is a case for proceeding quickly and getting the matter settled one way or the other.
There is a case for sticking as closely as possible to existing electoral procedures. That would mean no postal votes for holidaymakers. As it is our intention to hold the referendum in June, very few people will be on holiday.
Mr. Ian Gow Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne) rose—
Mr. Short: To allow postal voting would certainly have implications in General Elections. Our normal practice when we make such changes is to refer them to Mr. Speaker's Conference for study in depth.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: Am I not right in saying that when the issue of votes for those on holiday has been considered in the past, the only argument which has been put against it is that the period between the calling of a General Election and the date by which a postal vote has to be submitted is too short to allow them to have a vote? Presumably that argument cannot apply when we shall know many weeks in advance the date on which the referendum will take place? What is the argument against allowing those on holiday to vote?
Mr. Short: I hope that the House will look at this matter dispassionately. I have said that we have not taken a decision. We are willing to listen to the views of hon. Members. It does not help to shout about it. Let us discuss the matter objectively and sensibly. In reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman, we shall have to proceed on an informal basis until the Bill receives Royal Assent. That is one of the problems. The period would be relatively short—namely, about three weeks. We are prepared to consider the matter.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Since the capital transfer tax has been proceeding on an informal basis since 26th March last year and has not yet received Royal Assent, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the arrangements for the referendum could proceed in the same manner?
Mr. Short: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is getting obsessive about the capital transfer tax.
Mr. John Lee: As speed is of the essence, and bearing in mind that the Government put forward the peculiar proposal that peers may be included in the electoral roll for the purposes of the referendum, will my right hon. Friend say what the Government propose to do if the referendum legislation is obstructed in another place?
Mr. Short: I never bid the Devil, "Good morning ". Let us deal with such difficulties when we reach them.
We hope to help electors by arranging for poll cards to be produced in time. That will help the electors. There are many electors who imagine that they cannot vote unless they have a poll card. The advice of hon. Members will he welcome on possible solutions to the problems of independent scrutiny particularly at the count. There are a number of possibilities and I should like to know the views of hon. Members.
I turn now to the question of how the votes should be counted and how the results should be declared. The choice broadly is between different methods of counting locally by constituencies, counties or regions, with local or central announcement of the results, and, on the other hand, a central count. As I have already said, we want the referendum to unite the country behind a decision one way or the other. We want that decision to be reached democratically. We do not want it to be used for their own purposes by those who wish to divide the United Kingdom. There are some who wish to do that and who look forward to using the referendum for that purpose.
Mr. Douglas Henderson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and for coming
300
clean on the real reason for the extraordinary decision being made to insist upon a central count. I take it as a great compliment to my hon. Friends and myself that the right hon. Gentleman has found it necessary to proceed in that way. Bearing in mind his desire that familiar and tested electoral procedures should be followed, it will seem strange to people in Scotland, Wales and elsewhere that the votes will have to be trundled down to London. They will find it strange that there will not be adequate facilities for scrutineers to come from the areas that I have mentioned to ensure that the votes are correctly counted and to ask for a recount should there be a necessity for that course to be taken. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it would reassure people, and avoid the feeling that there might be a fiddling of the votes, if instead of being brought to London to be counted the votes were counted in the areas where the voting takes place?
Mr. Short: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will be able to put forward his point of view.
Confidentiality of results at local counts could never be guaranteed. It is a national poll and a national issue. The purpose of the referendum is to find out what the people of the United Kingdom think and not what any area or region thinks. The constituency is the whole of the United Kingdom. The Government propose that the ballot boxes shall be brought to London and the votes counted centrally. That would be a major task, but by no means impossible. It would take five days, including polling day, to count the votes. Details of the organisation are now being urgently investigated by a senior official who has been appointed to take responsibility for the arrangements until a national returning officer can be appointed.
I cannot yet say where it is proposed to hold the count, but the range of centres available in London for an operation of this size and duration is limited. Of course, Earls Court would be the natural choice because London is at the centre of our national communications. The date of the referendum—
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The right hon. Gentleman observed a

301
short while ago that the confidentiality of local results could not be guaranteed. Undoubtedly that is the case. Undoubtedly there will be a great deal of information, more or less accurate, of how the vote has gone in different localities. Is that not an argument which carries strongly in the opposite direction to the right hon. Gentleman's present tendency, since, if that is to be so, it would be far better if the truth were properly known and ascertained in the right way?
Mr. Short: That is a point of view. We want to know what the United Kingdom thinks as a whole. We are not concerned solely with Northern Ireland or Scotland or solely with anywhere else. The issue is whether the United Kingdom wishes to stay in or to come out.
Mr. Edward Gardner: I have a short point to put to the right hon. Gentleman which I hope the House will consider important. How on earth— or for that matter anywhere else— are the Government to make the administrative arrangements that will be able to cope with an enlarged register bringing in possibly 25 million to 30 million votes and to count those votes within five days?
Mr. Short: We have carried out a feasibility study into this question and we believe that it can be done in five days. The date of the referendum must depend upon the progress of renegotiation. Polling day is traditionally on a Thursday in General Elections, and all but a handful of results are available in less than 24 hours. If the count is to take five days, Thursday would present difficulties, but there would be an advantage in using the traditional polling day, and the earliest practicable day would probably be 19th June. If, on the other hand, a five-day operation is inevitable, the need to secure the speediest possible result indicates a poll earlier in the week than Thursday. A Sunday poll would be unacceptable to a great many people and a Monday would therefore obviously be the best. However, I would welcome views on this matter. The earliest practicable Monday woul probably be 23rd June. Wakes weeks begin in the second half of June, and on 23rd June I believe only two towns will be on holiday. On 30th June,
302
however, they would be joined by a dozen other Lancashire towns.
I turn now to the question of information. There is a good deal of evidence that voters need a great deal more information about the Market. The media and the campaigning organisations can be expected to provide plenty of general information. The Government's job is to supply objective information on the EEC generally and on the renegotiated terms and on the Government's recommendations. We feel that the special nature of the referendum justifies the delivery to every household of a popular version of the White Paper on the renegotiated terms and on the Government's recommendation. I am glad to tell the House that the Post Office and the Post Office workers are prepared to take on this substantial task—[Interruption.] I would have thought that the Opposition would have been pleased about that.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: My right hon. Friend said that the Government would provide objective information and a White Paper, but would it not be more confusing if, in the words of the White Paper, they answered requests
" for…interpretation of the renegotiated terms and the like "?
If they did that, who could tell what was interpretation and what was objective fact?
Mr. Short: Government Departments will be asked for information. Government Departments are telephoned every day for all kinds of information, and I am sure that there would be a flood of information about this.
Although procedures for the conduct of the referendum will resemble as closely as possible those for a General Election, the Government will have to ensure that the voters understand the mechanics of the operation and have a proper advance notice of the question on the ballot paper.
We have also considered the campaigns likely to be mounted by the two umbrella organisations, and we have come to the view that, in the interests of a fair contest, there is something to be said for a modest degree of support for the two organisations— particularly as there is likely to be disparity in the funds available to them. A lot will depend on how

303
far the bodies on each side coalesce into a reasonably united umbrella grouping. The Government could not offer to fund every separate body that proposes to campaign. Any money made available would, of course, have to be accounted for by the organisations after polling day.
However, whatever is decided on a direct cash subvention, the Government's major contribution is likely to be paying for the production and distribution, at the same time as the Government's own documents—which I have described—of the brief statement of both sides of the case which the White Paper describes as similiar to an election address.
There are precedents in other countries for the production of a document of this kind. I hope that hon. Members will agree that it is a reasonable proposal. It will allow each side to have a statement of its case sent to every household in the country.
Mr. Cormack: If the renegotiated terms are achieved in Dublin today, and if the Prime Minister, as he has indicated, commends these to the country, will he sign the election address?
Mr. Short: This will be a statement of the case written by the umbrella organisation concerned. It will prepare its own part of the case. Discussions are proceeding with the two campaigning bodies on this matter.
It will be very difficult, and probably impossible to legislate to control expenditure as happens in the case of a General Election, especially as such control could only relate to the very short period between the Royal Assent and the referendum. We take the view that it is probably better to ensure that there are all the normal electoral safeguards against undue pressure on individuals than to try to construct a restrictive framework of control on total expenditure.
The voters' main source of information will be television— even more so than at an election because there are no candidates. Provided television presentation is balanced it would take a very great deal to upset the balance of the campaign as a whole. I am confident that the BBC and IBA will ensure the correct balance both in their current
304
affairs programmes and in the referendum broadcasts.
Mr. Churchill: On the question of television time and on the funding of the campaigns on each side of the case, will the Leader of the House and his colleagues bear in mind what appears likely at the moment, that the three major national democratic parties in this country — the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party— will be on one side on this issue and the National Front and the Communist Party will be on the other side? Will he beware giving undue publicity to extremists of these parties?
Mr. Short: I do not accept that proposition at all.
I turn now to the Bill itself. It will be a relatively simple measure, which will authorise the holding of the referendum and will specify the wording of the ballot paper. It will provide for the appointment of someone to be responsible for the count and the certification of the result. It will make appropriate financial provisions and include power to adapt existing electoral machinery by order, and if the proposal is generally acceptable it will provide for assistance to the two campaigning bodies. A draft of the order setting out the electoral provisions will be available when the Bill is debated. The order will be made as soon as possible after Royal Assent. It will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and we believe it will be for the advantage of the House for a draft of the order to be available at the same time as the debate on Second Reading.
This Government came to power on a pledge that within 12 months of the election the people of Britain would be given the final say on whether to accept the terms that were in process of renegotiation or to reject them and come out. That promise we shall now fulfil. In doing so we shall be fulfilling also, two years late, the promise made by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). For at last the British people will have their chance to say whether or not they give their full-hearted consent to our membership of the EEC.
5.9 p.m.
Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: From the way in which the Leader of the

305
House began his speech, one would have thought that a referendum had been an inherent part of the Labour Party's doctrine for a very long time. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not true. In July 1971 the present Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, said from this Dispatch Box, when the question was being discussed at Question Time:
"I oppose a referendum, and I agree— I have always done so, as he has. The idea of an advisory referendum was not then put forward, but I still agree with the right hon. Gentleman on this question. But since he said, rightly, that the decision must be taken by Members of Parliament, each of them taking responsibility for his decision in the matter, will he look again at the White Paper which he published yesterday."— [Official Report, 8th July 1971; Vol. 820, c. 1515.]
It is clear from that that the present Prime Minister was wholly against referenda and thought that the decision should be made by Members of Parliament. I was a little concerned that in the closing parts of his speech the Lord President said that the British people must have the final say. I cannot quote his exact words, but I think that that was the expression he used. That is inconsistent with his earlier remark that the referendum did not derogate from parliamentary sovereignty. If it does not derogate from parliamentary sovereignty, it is Parliament which has the final say. He said that his pledge was that the British people should have the final say. That shows our constitutional difficulty in discussing this subject and in taking decisions before we have thought about them properly and considered all the consequences
The Lord President made great play on the question of the full-hearted consent of the people. Yesterday, when I was having the compulsory cold collation which we have to have these days, I was interested to see this letter in the Evening Standard:
" How tired one gets of the well-worn clichç ' the full-hearted consent of the people '. What exactly is meant by this? Referenda for every important piece of legislation? If this was the case, we would have no Race Relations Act, immigration would have been stopped, abortions would still be illegal and hanging still be in force. All these laws were passed not only without this full-hearted consent nonsense, but, if the polls are to be believed, in the face of a determined 70 to 80 per cent. of the electors' wishes to the contrary."
306
I expect that that is what we shall move to if we have the first referendum without considering the consequences that every piece of legislation will require full-hearted consent, which normally means consent exercised through the House, consent which my right hon. Friends and I have been concerned to exercise through the House but which the Lord President is now saying is consent exercised through the new device of a referendum. That used not to be part of the Labour Party's doctrine.
This referendum, if it is held, will be the first in United Kingdom history to affect the whole of the United Kingdom, but the White Paper makes no attempt to consider this constitutional decision.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Does the right hon. Lady think that the referendum on whether the Six Counties should remain part of the United Kingdom did or did not affect the rest of the United Kingdom?
Mrs. Thatcher: The referendum was not taken over the whole of the United Kingdom, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
The White Paper makes no attempt to consider the constitutional decision of a referendum. It does not discuss its long-term effect and it does not indicate the status of the referendum result at law. Indeed, the White Paper avoids all the fundamental arguments and treats the whole question as merely one of tactics and organisation— and to that I would add semantics.
The speech made by the Lord President shows how difficult it will be to frame a question which suits everyone and is regarded as fair by everyone, let alone how difficult will be the framing of the 1,000-word statements by umbrella groupings. That will be even worse.
Used by the Labour Government in the form proposed, the referendum is a tactical device to get over a split in their own party, and any constitutional consequences are, therefore, of only secondary importance in the Government's eyes.
Mr. Michael English: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Labour Party picked up the idea of a referendum during the passage of the European Communities Bill from an amendment tabled by the hon. Member

307
who represents the faction in the Conservative Party that is anti-market?
Mrs. Thatcher: On that occasion the referendum was rejected. Speeches were made on the subject from both sides of the House, to which I shall refer. The hon. Gentleman's interruption does not alter the fact that the White Paper makes no attempt to discuss the constitutional position once we have had the first referendum, although members of the Government accept that once we have a first referendum things will be different and will never be the same again.
I quote from a letter which appeared in The Times of 11th April 1972 from the Home Secretary:
" It may be argued…that the EEC referendum would be a once-for-all operation. The device would never be used again. Who can possibly say that? Once the principle of the referendum has been introduced into British politics, it will not rest with any one party to put a convenient limit to its use. And most history shows, as Clem Attlee pointed out with terse force in 1945, that it is a splendid weapon for demagogues and dictators."
Those who resigned with the Home Secretary on the occasion when the Labour Party later adopted the referendum— I understand after two meetings of the Shadow Cabinet within the space of a fortnight— took a similar view.
Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: I remind the right hon. Lady that the gentleman who proposed a referendum in 1945 was the then Leader of the Conservative Party and Prime Minister— Sir Winston Churchill.
Mrs. Thatcher: Indeed, yes. If I may go on with my own speech I shall come to that.
Referenda have been discussed before, in the House and elsewhere. There are some names that can be quoted in support of both sides of the argument. There will be even more names that can be quoted on both sides of the argument before we have finished the debate, if certain members of the Government vote in a way contrary to the way in which they resigned some time ago.
First, Dicey will be quoted on both sides of the argument, first by looking at the main edition of his book, which states that parliamentary sovereignty is supreme and, secondly, by looking at his views as a political activist who hated the party
308
system and thought that what he called the absolutism of a party possessed of parliamentary majority needed to be curbed. I confess that when I look at the Government benches I am inclined to agree with him that there are times when the absolutism of a majority party needs to be curbed, particularly in the period when curbs have been stopped after the reduction in powers of the House of Lords.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the right hon. Lady aware that Dicey is a work on English constitutional law which is not acceptable in Scotland? Is she also aware that the Prime Minister promised the Lord Advocate consultation on the question of the constitution of Scotland?
Mrs. Thatcher: Do read him. Both the eighth and tenth editions are full of good stuff. The last one which he wrote was the eighth edition.
Mr. Michael Stewart rose—
Mrs. Thatcher: I would prefer to get on, otherwise I shall take such a long time. I have only just started.
Mr. Michael Stewart: I only wished to say that I hope that the right hon. Lady will not pray Dicey in aid too much. If she reads another of the appendices to his great work, she will find that he argued that it was against the order of nature that women should elect Members of Parliament.
Mrs. Thatcher: It is interesting that in these days it is much easier for women to get on in the Conservative Party than in the Labour Party. Women who are politically interested therefore know which party to join to pursue their political activities. The reference to Dicey which I have made came in the introduction to the eighth edition, and it was used as an argument against a referendum. Dicey was on both sides, and will be prayed in aid by both sides.
Churchill proposed a referendum at a time when there had not been a General Election for a long period, when the normal constitutional procedures were in suspense. Previously, as Home Secretary — Home Secretaries seem to get into trouble on the referenda issue— Churchill resisted an amendment to have a referendum in 1911.

309
Churchill also can be prayed in aid on both sides— against the referendum when in Government, and for a referendum at the end of the wartime period. Therefore, one can pray in aid well-known parliamentarians or constitutional lawyers on both sides.
It is frequently the case that those who are against a change in the law put up the proposition of a referendum when they think that, by having one, they can defeat the change in the substantive law. That is the usual reason for such a suggestion. The answer given by the Government of the day is to consider all constitutional consequences. There have been a number of cases of that kind. There was a conference on the reform of the second Chamber which looked at the question of referenda and came to the following conclusion:
" The majority of the conference did not approve this plan on the ground, among others, that the use of the referendum, once introduced, could not be confined to cases for which it was in this instance proposed and that it might tend to lower the authority and dignity of Parliament."
Whoever tends to be against a Bill proposes a referendum. Normally the answer is, Let us consider its constitutional effects before agreeing to it "
The White Paper takes the view "Other democratic countries have had a referendum—why should not we? "That is to take far too simplistic a view of the referendum and to attempt to divorce one constitutional feature of a country from its whole context and refuse to look at the matter against a proper background.
If one is considering a referendum— I would he prepared to consider it, but not against this background— it would have to be considered against whether one should have a written constitution, under what circumstances one should have referenda, and how one would require to limit the power and curb the use of it by the Government of the day.
Mr. Lee: Rightly or wrongly— I would say wrongly— have we not already got a written constitution by virtue of our affiliation to the Common Market? It is full of written provisions which purport to apply to this country.
Mrs. Thatcher: The answer is "No." On occasion, those who have proposed a referendum naturally have subordinated whatever they might have thought of the
310
constitutional circumstances of a referendum to what they thought of the provision which it was meant to be against. We recognise that this may happen again. But before embarking on a referendum we, as a House, should consider its far-reaching consequences. We should attempt to do so under four heads. First, parliamentary sovereignty; secondly, collective responsibility; thirdly, representative Parliament; and, fourthly, the consequences for treaty obligations which have already been assumed.
Let me deal first with parliamentary sovereignty. There is no power under which the British constitution can come into rivalry with the legislative sovereignty of Parliament. That is the tenth edition of Dicey. To subject laws retrospectively to a popular vote suggests a serious breach of this principle. To subject laws prospectively before the final assent of the popular vote suggests we are using a different rule to validate laws. To have several referenda would create a new rule. We should be saying that some proposals require popular ratification and others do not. Without a written constitution one might ask: which proposals and what kind of measures?
The Government seek to avoid that question by claiming that the case is unique. That is unconvincing, and masks the fact that they see the matter purely in terms of political expediency and party need. To use the referendum device at all is to ask the question: to what category of measure should referenda apply? Presumably the answer would be: in cases of constitutional change. But it is hard to define such a change in the British tradition because so much depends on convention and precedent. A referendum may, however, become acceptable if given a proper constitutional foundation— that is to say, if the conditions under which it could be used were defined. But that would mean, like many other democratic countries, going as far as a written constitution or at least part of the way. The implications for parliamentary sovereignty are profound. But if our sense of constitutional rules and conventions is weakening, there may come a time when some such course should be considered.
Secondly, I turn to the principle of collective responsibility. The statement in

311
the annex to the White Paper makes it clear that the doctrine of collective responsibility will be suspended prior to the poll. I believe that it is suspended not on the terms of entry but on the whole principle of entry. That is the only consistent interpretation of what would happen. But the whole relationship of government with Parliament depends on that principle. No Government can be properly accountable to Parliament unless they acknowledge a collective responsibility with regard to main matters of policy. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House described this as the most important issue that has faced the country for many years. What he is saying is that the people must make a decision, Parliament must make a decision, but the Government are incapable of making a decision. On all major matters the essential task of government is decision. That does not mean absence of argument or absence of some differences. It means the capacity to reach a decision after argument and consideration, and sticking to it or resigning.
We now face the new system. If the Government cannot agree, gone is the discipline of resignation, gone is the principle of accountability to Parliament. The new doctrine is to pass the buck to the people. Let the people arbitrate is the view. Normally if people are to arbitrate, one would usually ask whether they consent to arbitrate in that way. That was the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and who wrote a letter to The Times on 27th March 1972 in the following terms:
" If we are to have a referendum, surely its first use must be to see whether the British people wish to introduce so important a departure from constitutional practice."
The Leader of the House said that the present referendum proposal was in his manifesto, but the Labour Government were returned to power on the basis of about 38 per cent. of votes cast or on the basis of about 28 per cent. of those eligible to vote. In fact there is no mandate for a referendum.
Mr. Edward Short: Will the right hon. Lady tell the House what her percentage was in the election?
Mrs. Thatcher: The right hon. Gentleman is not really attempting to understand the argument. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would do very much better. It was that right hon. Gentleman I was quoting. There is no evidence that the vast majority of our people wish to have a referendum on this issue.
If we wish to make certain, the logical and reasonable thing to do is to ask, in the first question—it could be done within the framework of the local elections— "Do you wish to leave this question to Parliament to decide in the normal way? ", in the way in which every single one of the original six Common Market countries decided. Although many of those countries have provision for referenda in their constitutions, they did not use it.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Gerald Fowler): I have been trying to follow with great care the right hon. Lady's argument about mandates. Will she accept that, if the present Government have no mandate for a referendum, the Conservative Government had no mandate to take us into the Common Market in the first place?
Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman cannot be much of a believer in parliamentary sovereignty to have made that intervention.
If Parliament is still sovereign—
Mr. Spearing: No taxation without representation.
Mrs. Thatcher: We could not be considering taking the country out of the Community unless Parliament were still sovereign, as the hon. Gentleman knows. If he believes in parliamentary sovereignty, yes, we had a mandate for going into Europe, and he knows it.
What I am saying is that if one wishes to ask whether the people want to leave the decision to Parliament— and I believe that many of them would like to do so— the proper procedure would be to put that question to them and find out. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman provide for that question to be put first? It might avoid all the other problems of having a referendum, of getting the umbrella organisations to draft statements, and so on.
Mr. Philip Whitehead: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. Does she not accept that parliamentary sovereignty for the referendum is explicit in the vote taken by the House tonight? Once the House has decided upon a referendum we can have sovereignty precisely as she said for entry into the Common Market. That is parliamentary sovereignty.
Mrs. Thatcher: Not by the vote taken tonight—
Mr. Whitehead: Yes.
Mrs. Thatcher: Only after the passage of the Bill through all its stages. Parliamentary sovereignty is not changed by declaration of the House, but only after the passage of a Bill through the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and after the giving of the Royal Assent, exactly the same passage as the European Communities Bill followed fully, after which we became a signatory to the treaty.
If we had a Government with enough courage to make a decision and give a clear lead, they would resign if they were defeated by the decision of the people. But, if I understand him correctly, the right hon. Gentleman has said elsewhere that the Government would not resign if the referendum went against their recommendation. Contrast Norway, which is used as an example for a referendum, where the Government resigned. But we understand that some members of the Government would resign. [An HON. MEMBER: "Stupid."] It is not very stupid, if one believes in collective responsibility. What the right hon. Gentleman is doing is to demolish collective responsibility for Labour Party convenience. He has a device so that the Government may stay, even if they are held in no confidence by the people. The people may say "We object to your main point of policy ", but nevertheless they have a device to stay in power, divided though they may be.
The third point I wish to make is the effect of a referendum on representative Government. The point was put forcibly in a debate on a Reference to the People Bill introduced in another place on 2nd March 1911. The Lord Chancellor then pointed out that our system, which has been copied all over the world, is one
314
of representative Government under which those who have not time to look into every detail of this or that Bill choose people who are honourable and with whose opinions they are in harmony to discuss these matters. That has been our system of Government for many years, representative Government in which the representatives consider and discusss all the points in detail. In a popular vote, the voter expresses an individual opinion. In a representative institution, the representative would be expected to consider the interests of minorities and see how the separate measure fitted into the whole. I believe that if we have a referendum system, minorities would not receive anything like such a fair deal as they have under the existing system. I think that that is what the correspondent to the Evening Standard was also trying to say.
The fourth point concerns respect for treaty obligations. The obligations which we assumed by signing and ratifying the treaty were validly, correctly and constitutionally assumed under the full sovereignty and competence of Parliament. The treaty has been in operation for over two years.
The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. David Ennals): Without the support of the people.
Mrs. Thatcher: Would the right hon. Gentleman wish to put capital punishment to the test of a referendum? Of course he would not, because he is prepared to choose the cases on which he consults the people, according to the convenience of the Government. Perhaps the late Lord Attlee was right when he said that the referendum was a device of dictators and demagogues.
The treaty has been in operation for over two years. I know of no country in the Western World in which a referendum has been used to override a treaty obligation which had been through all its parliamentary stages and had been in operation for two years. Such a step would have a damaging effect on Britain's standing in the world.
We do not even know what the status of the referendum decision is. The right hon. Gentleman's speech did not exactly clarify the position. It is said

315
that the referendum is advisory or consultative. I believe that if there is a high poll and a clear majority, the result will in fact be binding on Parliament, whatever one may say in law about parliamentary sovereignty. I cannot envisage that a Parliament, whatever individual Members might have thought, if there were a clear vote against— [Interruption.] It is not advisory or consultative in the event of a clear result. It would be binding on everyone. [HON. MEMBERS: "No. "] It would bind and fetter parliamentary sovereignty in practice.
But if there were a low poll, and an indecisive result, the question would arise whether the British people had genuinely given their verdict by their vote. The Government might regard themselves as bound, but the result could not fetter the decision of Parliament. The uncertainty would be likely to be increased and not ended. If the decision were taken to come out on a low poll, it would be possible to argue that a further referendum should be taken when the revised terms of a free trade area were considered and had been through the House. I am sure that one side or the other would find a method to argue for a second referendum in the event of a low poll, and for not accepting the result. We could get into a difficult position by having embarked upon this first referendum without fully considering the consequences.
I turn to the sequence of events which led to this proposal.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The right hon. Lady has enunciated a constitutional principle which some of us found a little difficult to understand. She said that in practice, if there were a large turn-out and a majority one way or the other, Parliament as a whole would be bound. Is she saying that that would over-ride the obligations that Members of Parliament entered into with their constituents at the previous election, which might be entirely different?
Mrs. Thatcher: I thought that I had made the position clear. I am sorry if I have not done so. In law, the result could not fetter Parliament, but I believe that in practice it would. That is all that I said. If there were an overwhelming decision one way or the other, I believe that in practice the, decision
316
in Parliament would follow the referendum result. That could in no way fetter the way in which Members not fetter them. I was talking only about what I believed would happen in practice what I believed would happen in practice.
We know the sequence of events which led up to this proposal. In 1971, the present Prime Minister was firmly against a referendum. But problems and divisions were arising in his own party, and one group of dissenters campaigned for a referendum. We accept that any hon. Member who holds strong views on the legislation itself is entitled to propose any method which he chooses to defeat it. But when Cabinets and Shadow Cabinets come to deliberate, they should bear in mind all the constitutional consequences of the course of action proposed to be slow to undermine cherished principles which have served liberty well for a long time.
It is quite possible to put a democratic case for having referendum provisions. If a referendum is put forward seriously as a constitutional instrument, we should need to consider the different kinds of referenda involved and what they implied for the present rules and conventions of our political order.
Assuming that we wanted the referendum provisions to apply only to constitutional questions, we should try to define what that means in a British context— an extraordinarily difficult exercise. If we wanted to avoid leaving the decision on whether to have a referendum to the whim of future Governments, we should have to think of some means of limiting its powers.
The White Paper does none of this. It is a practical expedient. It will have far-reaching consequences. The immediate point may be to register a popular view towards staying in the EEC. The longer-term result will be to create a new method of validating laws. What one Minister has used as a tactical advantage on one issue today, others will use for different issues tomorrow. This will lead to a major constitutional change, a change which should only be made if, after full deliberation, it was seriously thought to be a lasting improvement on present practice.
No such deliberation occurs in the White Paper which has been described

317
in the Sunday Times of 2nd March as reeking
" fittingly of shame There is nothing here of the sovereign people, the higher democracy, the deeper search for a fuller-hearted consent…The Paper is written, unmistakably, by people who have lost all conviction in what they are saying. The referendum's true genesis, as a piece of thoughtless short-term brokerage in the Labour Party, is aptly reflected in the White Paper's dominant tone, which is one of helpless bewilderment at what is about to happen."
We saw that in the speech of the Leader of the House today.
This White Paper has come about because of the Government's concern for internal party interests. It is a licence for Ministers to disagree on central issues but still stay in power. I believe that the right course would be to reject it and to consider the wider constitutional issues properly and at length.
5.43 p.m.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I am delighted to be called immediately after the Leader of the Opposition in what I believe was her maiden speech in that rôle. I agree with much of what she said, save for the constitutional matter which I raised with her in my intervention and with which I should like to deal in a moment.
The only matter which is unique in this whole discussion is that the Government wish to hold a referendum. I should say straight away that many right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, including some of my own colleagues on the Liberal bench, have on different occasions for different reasons put forward the idea in principle of holding referenda for different purposes. I myself have not. I have always been opposed to them.
Mr. Norman Buchan Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrewshire, West) rose—
Mr. Thorpe: I should like at least to start my speech. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later. What is unique —
Mr. Buchan rose—
Mr. Thorpe: If the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) wishes to refer to the Feu Duties Bill or to the
318
Ten-Minute Bill about devolution which include a referendum, certainly I voted for them if that makes him happy.
Mr.Buchan Mr.Buchan rose—
Mr. Thorpe: I am sorry. I am entitled at least to start my speech. If the hon. Gentleman still feels that he wishes to raise a point with me later, I will give way to him, but not now. I wish to start my speech.
What is unique is that the Government of the day are recommending that we should have a referendum. Since this has not always been the view of the Labour Party, we are entitled to examine the Government's motives for this change just as much as we are the machinery which they are recommending.
On 25th November 1969, at column 199, of the Official Report, when the present Prime Minister was then Prime Minister, he was asked by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) whether legislation might be introduced for a national referendum on entry into the Common Market once the terms were known. The Prime Minister's reply, which was unusually short and incredibly decisive, was "No, Sir." I know the modesty of the hon. Member for Banbury, and I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not quote his supplementary question because it was not highly relevant or germane to my present argument. But he has at least been consistent in these matters. The Prime Minister went on to say:
" It is contrary to our traditions in this country…Hon. Members on either side of the House do not usually feel that referenda are a way in which to conduct our public affairs. I am sure that a referendum would give 100 per cent. support for increasing expenditure on every item. It would give 100 per cent. support for abolishing income tax."
At that point, Sir Gerald Nabarro intervened to say:
" What a splendid idea!"
The Prime Minister went on:
"That was what I hoped to imply. It is not a way in which we can do business. These are matters on which hon. Members are elected to the House and they have been free to express their opinions, as they were in the debates in the House, and as they will he again when we are offered terms for joining the Common Market."— [Official Report, 25th November 1969; Vol. 792, c. 199–200.]

319
Then again, when the Labour Party was in power and the Government published their White Paper (Cmnd. Paper 4289) in February 1970 they said:
" Once the outcome of negotiations is clear, it will then be for Parliament to decide."
If we look at the Labour Party Manifesto of 1970, under the heading,
" Now Britain is strong. Let's make it great to live in.",
there are two references to Europe. The first underlines the desire of the Labour Party
"…to play a full part in the future political and economic development of our continent."
The second says:
"…we have applied for membership of the EEC and negotiations are due to start in a few weeks' time. These will be pressed with determination with the purpose of joining an enlarged Community provided that British and essential Commonwealth interests can be safeguarded."
Shortly after, in the debates in this House, when there was a majority of 112 on the terms negotiated, I remember asking the present Secretary of State for Employment, who at the time was in an unaccustomed position on the Opposition Front Bench, when at any stage in the 1970 General Election the Labour Party, either in its manifesto or in any speech or broadcast, ever said that before Britain went into the Common Market there would either be a General Election or a referendum and that either one or the other would be a condition precedent. The right hon. Gentleman could not give me that answer, because there was no answer which he could give me. It had never been a condition precedent.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to the speed with which the present Prime Minister sprang to the Dispatch Box on 8th July 1971 to assure the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the then Prime Minister, that it was true that he had always been totally consistent in opposing the concept of a referendum. The conversion came in April 1972 as a result of which the Home Secretary, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Mr. George Thomson all resigned from the Shadow Cabinet and the Home Secretary wrote that he could not accept this constant shifting of ground. If I may give the right hon. Gentleman a piece of friendly advice, he should accept the dictum of the old Clydesider, "If you
320
can't ride two horses at once, you shouldn't be in the ruddy circus at all."
Therefore, we are entitled to ask why the Labour Government have changed their mind. There has not been a sudden democratic rush of blood to the head. If there was any lingering doubt about that, certainly the Leader of the House did not give that impression.
I believe that it would be profoundly unfair to put forward any explanation other than from the lips of the Labour Party itself.
The right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, speaking on the Thames Television programme "People and Politics "on 20th February 1975. reported in The Times on the following day, said:
" The Government would have broken up if it had not been decided to hold a referendum ".
She said that although the referendum was bound to cause wounds within the party, she thought it would survive.
" I think Harold is very good at healing wounds"
she added. No one has greater experience, and needs to have greater experience, of doing that, than the right hon. Gentleman.
I think we have to accept, when we are looking at the merits of the matter, that when the electors ask, as many of them do, "Why cannot you make up your own minds? We elected you to do the job ", the short answer is, "Because the Labour Government cannot agree, and therefore the nation at public expense is asked to resolve their difficulties ". That is the reason, and it is no good beating around the bush.
We know that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary will say "Yes ", and that the Secretary of State for Industry, the Secretary of State for Employment, the Minister of Overseas Development and the Secretary of State for Trade will say "No ". They will say respectively "Yes" or "No ", whatever the arguments are, and it will be surprising if the Prime Minister does not announce next week that he has scored a massive triumph in Dublin and he thinks we should all support the idea of staying in Europe.

321
What is unique is that this is the only occasion on which the Government have had to propose what is a device to paper over their own cracks. But if I do the Labour Party and the Labour Government an injustice and we are having this referendum because it is a matter of great constitutional significance, it is a matter which, as the right hon. Gentleman said in the preface, is unique, if I am charitable and suggest that that is why the Government have changed their minds, is not the question whether Scotland and Wales wish, or do not wish, to secede from the United Kingdom, whatever views we may have, not a pretty profound constitutional decision? If there are many people who disagree with the whole electoral system under which Members are elected, whatever views people have on other questions, is not that a matter of great constitutional importance? Where do we draw the line? Why is it right for one and not for the other?
If we believe that, why do not we have Sunday opening, where there is a matter of local option?
Mr. Buchan Mr. Buchan rose—
Mr. Thorpe: If the hon. Gentleman has in mind the Ten-Minute Rule Bill on which I voted I shall give way in a moment and put him out of his agony. Why not have a referendum on whether we should drive on the right hand side of the road? Why should we not have had one on decimalisation? That would have guaranteed it would never have happened. If we could have had one on decimalisation the answer would have been "No ", and if we were to have a referendum now on whether we should go back to the old system of currency the answer would also be "No ". The Government, unless they are going to be charged with introducing a cynical device, have to show why it is the uniqueness of this constitutional issue which calls for a referendum for all time but on no other issues.
Mr. Buchan: The right hon. Gentleman referred to a referendum on this issue for all time, but on no others, and mentioned the question of devolution in Scotland. That was all to buttress the fact that, among other things, he and the Liberal Party opposed the question of a
322
referendum on that matter, as they did on other issues.
In the Session 1968–69, a Private Member's Bill was debated at length on a Friday. I replied to the debate and pointed out that the Bill should not be passed until the constitutional commission had reported. It was a Liberal Bill, introduced by Mr. James Davidson, then the Member for Aberdeenshire, West. It was the Scotland and Wales (Referenda) Bill, the sponsors of which were Mr. James Davidson, Mr. Jo Grimond—
Mr. Sneaker: Order.
Mr. Buchan: —Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Russell Johnson and Mr. David Steel.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must resume his seat when I rise. I think that this is an abuse of an intervention. The hon. Member is making a speech. He can put a point to the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) if he gives way, but he must not read out a list of names.
Mr. Thorpe: The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West may not have been here at the beginning of my speech. I said that many right hon. and hon. Members, including Members of the Liberal Party, had voted for the concept of a referendum, and voted for the Bill introduced by Mr. Davidson, then the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman exerted so much time and effort on bringing out that point. I readily concede it. We are entitled to ask why the Government, who have consistently as a party and as the Government opposed a referendum on the issue of Europe, have now come round and changed their view, and the short answer is that no one has deflected us from that—
Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I remind the hon. Member that there are many hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate.
Mr. Buchan: With respect, Mr. Speaker, this is an important point. I challenged the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) on a matter of truth, which was rejected. I am prepared to take the right hon. Gentleman's last few remarks as an apology for his

323
previous statement which denied the truth of what I was saying.
Mr. Thorpe: The next point that is important is the view of the Government—
Mr. Gwilym Roberts Mr. Gwilym Roberts rose—
Mr. Thorpe: I am sorry, but I must get on.
The Government have indicated in paragraph 7 that even if there is only a one vote majority out of 30 million or 40 million they will be bound by it. This is a totally new constitutional concept. They are strictly entitled to say that they will accept the result, however low the poll, but they have indicated that if they make a firm recommendation that they wish, for example, to remain in Europe, and there is a majority, however small, against remaining in Europe, they will stay in office. That is because they believe it is not a sufficiently important issue upon which they should resign, but in the next breath they say it is a sufficiently important issue on which to have a referendum. They cannot have it both ways.
In other words, this is as important as the Reform Bill, as the problems of Ireland in 1886 and tariff questions. It is as important as all those, hence a referendum. Yet when it comes to the decision staying in power is more important than listening to that view. Alternatively, the Government are saying in their recommendations, "These are our principles, but if you do not like them we should try to find others later on ".
Then we move on to the question of the count. Presumably we shall see special trains travelling through the night and British Road Services' lorries trundling through country lanes bringing 40 million ballot papers to a place which has not been discovered, but which we think will be Earls Court.
I want to make it plain that I am opposed to an inter-nation count. I hope that Government Members will listen They may not agree with me, but I hope they will do me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say. I am opposed to a special count for Wales, for Scotland, for Northern Ireland and for England because if, as could well happen, there is a different decision in those different
324
nations, the logic should be that those individual nations should have the right to secede from the Common Market, and therefore from the United Kingdom.
The Scottish and Welsh National Parties are in favour of separation from the United Kingdom, but I believe that if that decision is to be taken it must not be taken by the back door of a referendum on something else. It must be taken by a General Election which shows that in Scotland and Wales a majority of Members and a majority of voters are in favour of separation. We have a constitutional issue of great magnitude, but it should be resolved though the ballot box and not by a referendum.
Mr. Henderson: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that in Scottish eyes the United Kingdom Parliament is not entirely sovereign, but that it is bound by the terms of a bargain into which the Scottish nation and the other nations of these islands joined in 1707 and that the Scottish people are entitled to decide whether the sovereignty of Scotland, which at present resides in this House, should be transferred to any third party?
Mr. Thorpe: I do not know whether it helps at this stage if Scotland is technically at war with France or whether the Act of Union was or was not a handout for gold. If there is to be a change in the relationship between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom it should be the result of a democratic election at which the electors of the United Kingdom have a say— not by a referendum but by a parliamentary election.
Mr. Gwilym Roberts Mr. Gwilym Roberts rose—
Mr. Thorpe: I cannot answer more than one intervention at a time, and some hon. Members may feel that there have been too many already.
It would be much more frustrating to the Nationalist Parties to have a decision taken which was then totally ignored, rather than to have the problem of secession or non-separation decided by the normal constitutional means of the ballot paper. That is how I would contest it.
The more I look at the idea of a national count, the more I believe that it has grave disadvantages. First, it will take five days. What that period of uncertainty will do to investments and to the

325
pound is something on which, no doubt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have views.
Paragraph 13 of the White Paper states that we shall be using the existing returning officers. Therefore, I see no reason why the count cannot either be at constituency level or at county level. There are those who say that to have it at constituency level would mean that a Member of Parliament would be pressurised and mandated to carry out the views of his electorate which might be different from the views he expressed at his election. It ill becomes hon. Members to put forward that argument when they are taking away certain of the decision-making powers of Members of Parliament by having a referendum. They cannot have it both ways.
I am in favour of a count, preferably at constituency level. If that cannot be arranged— and I see no reason why it cannot— it must be at county level. It is not sufficient, in paragraph 21, to say that a national count is the "most appropriate ". That is not giving us the benefit of the Government's profound thinking.
On the question of postal votes, I am afraid that the Leader of the House, with great respect, is not entirely seized of the matter. Unless a person was resident on the qualifying date, for example, October, he would not be on the register. Many thousands of people working abroad are not on the register. Some of them are closely involved in the outcome of this referendum. They represent this country in the Community.
The guide we should follow and at which I invite the Leader of the House to look is the referendum in Northern Ireland. There the facilities given for postal votes were extremely generous and, while there was the usual initial hostility from civil servants, who said it could not be done, people who were on holiday abroad, and who had difficulties did receive a postal vote. I see the right hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw) present. I am sure he will agree that there was a high turn-out.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The right hon. Member will recollect that that was consistent with the form of the franchise in Northern Ireland for local elections, both to the Assembly and for
326
local government. That does not apply to the rest of the Kingdom.
Mr. Thorpe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think he will also agree that never before at an election had it been easier to get a postal vote than during that campaign. For the first time, people on holiday were able to have postal votes. For once Northern Ireland has pointed the way in democracy. It may be an unusual experience but that is the position and I should like to see it followed here.
If the British people are free to vote we should like to be certain that the House of Commons will also be free to vote. It would be rather strange if we were whipped here and the British electorate had a free vote.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned the Government's information unit, referred to in paragraph 31 of the White Paper. This will be a fascinating outfit. It will give not only factual information but an interpretation of the renegotiated terms. Presumably both Government points of view will have to be represented at all times. Individuals will decide their fancy and then decide which of the two doors to enter— the one marked "In" or the one marked "Out ". If an hon. Member goes in the door marked "In ", he will probably find a representative of the Home Secretary, but if he goes in the door marked "Out" there will probably be a representative of the Secretaries of State for Trade, Industry or Employment. It will be interesting to know how this is to be worked out.
I am not all that happy about the so-called "umbrella organisations ". It is true that many hon. Members will be closely associated with both umbrellas. We are shovelling money and a considerable amount of political power to the umbrella organisations, one of which is headed by a retired diplomat and the other by an obscure lawyer.
Mr. Neil Marten Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury) rose—
Mr. Thorpe: I am not referring to the hon. Gentleman. I am talking about the apparatchik who will be in charge.
Mr. Marten: I think I know to whom the right hon. Gentleman is referring. That gentleman is merely the head of

327
one of the organisations affiliated to the National Referendum Campaign which is the umbrella organisation of which I happen to be the chairman.
Mr. Thorpe: I will gladly withdraw. I shall merely refer to the lawyer as an obscure spoke in the umbrella. The hon. Gentleman is the spring of the umbrella. We have to look carefully at these umbrella organisations which will be given a great deal of taxpayers' money and political power.
We are being asked to introduce a referendum, not because, after long and mature reflection, we believe that this is a way in which we can improve the political life of this country, but to help the Prime Minister unify his party. The taxpayer will be asked to pay for the expensive business of trying to unify the Labour Party. This has been described as a White Paper with green edges. In my view those edges are rather brown.
Unless we are given a firm undertaking people will regard the referendum as symptomatic of the withdrawal symptoms which the Government have been showing in the past few years after their keen Europeanism at the time of "never taking no for an answer ". It is a cynical way to introduce this constitutional practice. I shall vote against it.
6.9 p.m.
Mr. Roy Hughes: I am grateful for being allowed to take part in this debate on the proposal to hold a referendum.
There are people who say that the electorate cannot be trusted in this matter and that they do not understand the issues. I refer to the words of the late Hugh Gaitskell when, in 1962, he said that this was the message of the tyrants throughout the centuries. Nevertheless, it is a fact that many people, especially Conservative Members, quite needlessly work themselves up into a lather about this issue.
The principle of a referendum has been built into the constitutions of many countries. They were held efficiently and without much bother. Over many years leading figures in the Conservative Party have advocated a referendum. Before the First World War it was the official policy of the Tory Party on
328
the vexed question, then as now, of Home Rule for Ireland. In 1930 Mr. Stanley Baldwin advocated a referendum on Empire Free Trade. The late Sir Winston Churchill in 1945 proposed one in a letter to the party leaders to decide whether the life of that Parliament should be extended. Since the Conservative Party is the party of tradition, it ill behoves it to react in this way. In passing I might add that we have referenda on Sunday opening in Wales from time to time. They are held efficiently, and are quite progressive.
The whole Common Market business was simply steam-rollered through the House. We are reminded of the majority of 112, but we are not reminded of the fact that on the issue of principle, in the Second Reading debate, the majority was only eight. That measure was certainly put through without the "full-hearted consent of the British people "which the then Prime Minister promised us.
There is concern now that ordinary people should have a say about this great issue and that they might even vote against the Establishment in the form of the Foreign Office, big business and so on. The Labour Party won two elections last year on this issue. It was clearly a point of principle then and I am glad that the Government have decided to honour their promise. This referendum means more than paying lip-service to the subject. It is essential that it should be fair. The dice must not be loaded. The Government have a heavy responsibility here. We know that for a long time every national newspaper has been greatly in favour of the Common Market. They have exercised all manner of distortions and censorship to point out the merits of the Common Market. The BBC has even digressed from its usual high standards.
We had the serious speech by the Economic Commissioner, Mr. Haferkamp, on 19th February at the Common Market Parliament in Strasbourg. He said that it was time the people were told the truth and that the days of fast increases in prosperity were gone for ever. He forecast virtual stagnation of the economies of the Nine. People will have to make sacrifices, he said. This is a rather different picture from that painted for the people of Britain.

329
Private enterprise in this country is, I am afraid, practising a form of arm-twisting. We have had the case of the Hoover company at Merthyr which has told its employees that if Britain does not remain in the Common Market it does not intend to go ahead with its expansion plans. Paragraph 39 of the White Paper expresses the hope that the campaign will not interfere with industrial relations. If companies act in this way, that will be the effect.
Mr. Carlisle: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that a company does not have a responsibility to point out to its work force the serious danger to their employment if we should withdraw from Europe?
Mr. Hughes: It will be appreciated that the trade unions should have the opportunity to put the contrary viewpoint. A representative of the Brussels bureaucracy was allowed to tour those works last week but no similar facility was given to those who wish to put the opposite case. This is an example of the prejudice being practised.
The Government have a difficult job in ensuring that there is fair play on both sides. I am not at all happy about some of the proposals in the White Paper. There is the question posed on page 4 which speaks of the "European Community ". That is a very cosy term. We know that the ordinary people of Britain have always known this organisation as the Common Market. Again, the question talks about staying in the European Community. It would be more neutral if we asked "Should we be in the Common Market? "At the very least the words "Common Market "should be included in parenthesis after "European Community ".
Paragraph 10 of the White Paper talks about consultations with various bodies and organisations. I understand that the National Executive of the Labour Party took a point on this. It felt that the words "Common Market" should he included in the question.
Likewise, the organisation of which the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) said he was chairman wants "Common Market" to be included in the question. It is notable that since the White Paper has been published it is
330
the pro-Marketeers who are highly satisfied with the document rather than those who are opposed to Britain's membership of the Common Market.
There is also the issue of the count. The proposal is that it should be on a national basis. This is quite alien to British tradition. We all know our parliamentary counts on a constituency basis. People understand the arrangements. This suggestion of a national count is nothing short of a gift to the Nationalists. Serious consideration should be given to the count being organised on a constituency basis so as to make it more meaningful. There are some pro-Marketeers who are a bit shy, or coy, about this. I would have thought that they want to know what they their constituents feel about this. If they are sincere in their beliefs they have nothing to fear.
This is particularly relevant because, as the Leader of the House said this afternoon, hon. Members will be expected to adhere to the decision. That is all the more reason for them to know what their constituencies think about it. The Government recommendations contained in paragraphs 25 to 31 of the White Paper talk about collective responsibility. We are not in a collective situation. It is an open secret that various leading members of the Government— and leading members of the Opposition, too— are ready to speak out against the renegotiated terms. If any document is to be sent out it should contain not only a majority viewpoint but a minority viewpoint. It might be better if there were no recommendation at all.
Next, there is the question of the setting up of an information unit. This can only have the effect of bringing the Civil Service into politics. We criticised the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) when he used the services of the Post Office a few years ago, and the present suggestion could be an even worse transgression.
Paragraphs 35 to 39 of the document refer to expenditure limitation. We know on which side the money bags are on this issue It has always been a case of big business versus the people of Britain. What we can say is that the people of Britain have been remarkably resilient, despite all the millions of pounds that have been spent on propaganda over the years. I ask whether it is too late even

331
at this stage for some sort of parity to be introduced into this campaign.
In the matter of advertising in the Press and on hoardings, there are two alternatives. One is to ban it altogether, apart from the actual notices of meetings, or if one side is to be offered these facilities, similar facilities ought to be offered to the other side as well. In the referendum in Denmark— and we know what the people of Denmark think about the Common Market— the people were swamped in the last week of the campaign with propaganda in the newspapers. Some very costly advertisements were inserted, and the people, so it seems in retrospect, were swayed against their better judgments. The Government must at least provide the necessary finance to ensure that both sides get a fair crack of the whip.
This referendum is essentially a victory for the anti-marketeers. Despite all the mass indoctrination over the years, it is obvious that the people of Britain have no enthusiasm at all for the Common Market. If the pro-Marketeers say that this is the issue of the age, this transformation cannot take place without the wholehearted consent of the people. That is why I support the referendum.
6.23 p.m.
Mr. Richard Wood: For a number of years I have found myself walking through one Lobby or the other at the end of our debates with a variable sense of enthusiasm, and, no doubt, hon. Members have shared that feeling. The vote that I cast tonight against this White Paper will be one of the most enthusiastic that I have ever cast during my membership of the House of Commons.
This White Paper is said to be a consultative document. Most of those who have so far spoken have talked about its green edges. The Lord President of the Council is said to be waiting for helpful and constructive ideas. If I were convinced that the purpose of the suggested referendum was purely, or even mainly, to discover the will of the British people, I should like to respond to the invitation of the Lord President of the Council. I always like to do my best to be helpful. In fact, I can gather no impetus to support a manoeuvre which seems to me to be clearly designed less to test public opinion
332
than to preserve the unity of the Labour Party, and to preserve it, as the Leader of the Liberal Party has made clear, at a very considerable cost to the taxpayer. This is, therefore, my first reason for opposing this White Paper.
My second reason is, no doubt, shared by many hon. Members. I really am appalled at the naĩvety of the authors of this White Paper who say in the second sentence of the preface:
" The referendum is to be held because of the unique nature of the issue…".
I think this is a terribly dangerous argument. In a real sense every political issue and, indeed, every individual member of our society is unique. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is clearly unique. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, for very different reasons, can also probably be considered unique; and so with all kinds of political issues.
I do not go along entirely with the suggestion, which has been attributed to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), that the referendum, if it is held, should include a question on capital punishment, but that is indeed an issue that certainly has a claim to uniqueness. So have a great many others.
I do not believe that a referendum on the membership of the European Community would be unconstitutional. That, I think, would be quite a wrong doctrine. But a referendum in the United Kingdom would certainly be unique, and there is a great deal to be said for the suggestion, repeated this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, that before making this new departure from our normal practice, it might be appropriate first to hold a referendum on the wisdom and desirability of doing so.
Is this European issue unique because the sovereignty of Parliament is going to be substantially reduced? Is the sovereignty of Parliament substantially reduced if, in fact, Parliament retains the power to reverse previous decisions? We are now members of the European Community. Can we, if we were so disposed, now extract ourselves from it? Presumably the answer is yes. Otherwise the referendum proposal is an even greater nonsense than I thought. But if

333
we can still get out of the European Community, it seems to me that the limitations on our freedom of action imposed by signing the Treaty of Rome have been greatly exaggerated.
Therefore, the European issue is neither so unique, nor does it involve such an exceptional or irrevocable surrender of sovereignty as to satisfy the Government's own criteria for this singular appeal to the British people.
Mr. Bryan Gould: Would the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the whole object and purpose of those who took us into Europe and who passed the European Communities Act is to subject this House and the country to a superior legal system which would in the end make the repeal of the Act impossible?
Mr. Wood: There will, no doubt, be opportunities later to argue this whole question of the diminution of sovereignty. What I have said is that our sovereignty has not been so diminished as to make it a unique issue demanding a referendum to decide whether the decision that has been taken continues or whether it is changed. That is my second reason for opposing it.
My other reasons for doing so can, I am glad to assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, be put rather more briefly. I have so far no evidence to convince me that our constituents are falling over themselves to pronounce on this issue of Europe. I suspect that a very large number of them would be only too willing to ask Parliament to take this decision on their behalf— not because they think that hon. Members are wiser than they are. I think any examination of the letters which we receive from our constituents— when they happen to reach us — would quickly shatter any illusion that any sense of our superior wisdom, which we may sometimes be tempted to believe we possess, is shared by anyone outside the Palace of Westminster.
There are, however, many people outside Parliament, who may be unimpressed by our superior wisdom, but who none-the-less recognise that this is an issue with which Parliament has lived for getting on for two decades; which is an advantage—or a disadvantage— shared by relatively few people outside. I believe that many
334
of the others will take the view that this is, therefore, a decision for Parliament if only because of our constantly growing familiarity with most of the questions and the arguments.
My last reason for believing that this is a decision for Parliament, following a strong Government lead, is that this is patently not a decision which affects us alone—neither our generation only, nor exclusively the British people.
It is true that vision and imagination, like wisdom, are not the peculiar possession of hon. Members. But Governments have the advantage of information, which is not available to others, about the likely effect of their actions on others, both at home and abroad. The function of Governments is to lead, and I hope that we shall be given a clear lead at the conclusion of the Dublin Summit. The function of Governments is also to decide, and while no sensible Government goes ahead blindly with no regard to public opinion, it is for the Government to reach decisions. I hope and pray that the Government will ultimately face their responsibility to do so, because the Government, more clearly than any of us, can see the effect of the decision that will be taken this year on millions of people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America and the end of the world, and on millions of people who have not yet been born.
The effect of our decision on Britain is important, but the opportunity which that decision can give Britain among the other nations of the world, for the rest of this century and beyond, will help to shape the kind of world our children and grandchildren will live in. The Government are, or ought to be, better equipped than the most eminent individuals outside to look across the horizons which limit the vision of most of us. Yet they shiver on the brink of great decisions and aim to unload their great responsibility on shoulders which appear very reluctant to bear the burden.
Therefore, even at this late hour, I beg the Government to forget this farce of a referendum and to be worthy of this historic opportunity, or else give way to people who are.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): There are over 50 hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate. If others will follow the example of the

335
right hon. Gentleman, who is one of our most senior Members, but who took only 10 minutes, it will help us all.
6.32 p.m.
Mr. Paul B. Rose: At a time of historic opportunity to which the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Ward) has referred, I must confess that I am somewhat disappointed with the arid legalism of the speech of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition.
I understand the difficulties encountered by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, acting within the terms of reference that are given to him, in producing a White Paper on a referendum which is supposed to be fair to both sides, because this constitutional instrument, within the context of a Parliament which is supposed to be supreme, cannot be fair. Further, the way in which we pose the questions and the questions which we ask must to some extent determine the answers that are given. It has been said by many Opposition Members that this is a compromise. Of course it is a compromise, and we should be taking the electorate for fools if we were not to accept that it is a compromise.
As a committed European I should regard it as a far greater evil for the Labour Party—the greatest party in the country—and the Labour movement, which was spawned in Western Europe from Western European ideas, to turn its back on democratic socialism in Europe than to have to go through the rather shoddy business of a referendum. The turning of our backs on Europe is a greater evil and this is a lesser evil, which I am afraid we have to accept.
It has been suggested that we have a precedent for a referendum because some time ago we debated—and I participated in the debate—the question of the Northern Ireland referendum. What on earth did the Northern Ireland referendum decide? Did it decide anything? The result of the referendum in Northern Ireland was to decide nothing. The way in which the question was posed was one which many of my right hon. and hon. Friends found unacceptable, because there were many other questions that might have been posed in that referendum. Condominium was one that was
336
canvassed very widely by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). Therefore, the way in which a question is posed inevitably must affect the referendum.
Many of us would like a third question in this referendum—a question which has been referred to already, namely, whether the elected representative of a constituency should abdicate his responsibilities. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) said, there are some of us who have the courage to face our constituents and to vote in the way we believe is right and to answer for our vote. If we are prepared to do that, we are prepared to vote in the House and to offer ourselves for re-election.
It is right to say that there is a third alternative, namely, a conscious decision by an elector to decide that his elected representative, having considered the matter, should vote. In the only survey or referendum that I have conducted in my constituency I found that two-thirds of my constituents took the view, when the alternatives were posed, that an elected representative must take the decision. One-third came out broadly in favour of doing what the majority of constituents wanted—whatever that might be at any given time—and 4 per cent. said that the Member should vote according to what his local party thought.
The referendum, as an instrument, is open to manipulation as regards timing and the way in which the question is posed. I welcomed the assurance that I understand my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave, that we shall be given the opportunity of declaring our views in debate prior to a final decision under the terms of the referendum. It is we who should ultimately decide this issue and whether the boundaries of Europe are to be drawn from Derry to Dundalk, and perhaps with 20 miles of sea out from Dover to separate us from the rest of Europe. It is we who have to decide whether those 20 miles of sea and perhaps an RUC patrol at Crossmaglen will keep the tide of Europe out of Britain.
There is no precedent in this country, or indeed any other country, for this kind of referendum. What has been universally acknowledged to be uncharted territory

337
is a referendum in the context of a system of the supremacy of Parliament. Whereas in other systems the question may be posed by a president or some other body we in this Parliament are the ones who decide the question.
One could draw up a very impresive list of divergencies from precedents in the form of a General Election. This is not a General Election. This is new. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport missed the whole point when he said "Let us vote by constituency ", because the whole purpose of a referendum is to overcome the constituency boundaries and to declare the view of the nation as a whole.
Mr. Gould: Would my hon. Friend agree that referenda have been held in New Zealand where there is a unitary and unwritten constitution virtually identical to our own and where the doctrine of supremacy of Parliament also prevails?
Mr. Rose: That may be so, and I do not doubt that my hon. Friend has a great deal more knowledge than I have of New Zealand. However, there is no precedent, as far as I know, for a referendum in New Zealand which will assist us in coming to this decision. All I know is that in both New Zealand and Australia it has been declared by those in office that it would be no advantage to them if we were to leave the European Community.
We are concerned today with a referendum and not a General Election. In regard to the preamble, the form of the question and the way in which the votes are counted, it would be entirely wrong to base our assumptions on what has occurred in the past in General Elections.
I am concerned about the umbrella organisations mentioned in the White Paper. Who elected the umbrella organisations? To whom are they responsible? I do not want to coalesce with the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition. I want to work for a Socialist Europe with my social democratic friends in Europe and through the Labour Committee for Europe. I do not want an umbrella organisation.
I should like to know what is to happen to the funds that go to the other organisation. given that there are 23 anti-Common
338
Market bodies affiliated to a committee which shares the same address as the National Front used during the last General Election and which are used as a front for that organisation. Is the money that is allocated by the House to find its way into the pockets of King Street, for example, or into the pockets of the National Front?
Who elected the umbrella organisations? To whom are they responsible? Or are we the people who are responsible to the electorate?
Mr. Marten: Will the hon. Gentleman say to which address he was referring? The National Referendum Campaign, which is the umbrella organisation, has an address which I do not think has any connection at all with the party to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
Mr. Rose: Of course not. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right with regard to that umbrella organisation. There is the Federation of Anti-Common Market Organisations with, I think, 23 bodies affiliated to it. I absolve the hon. Gentleman's organisation entirely from that and no slur should be cast upon it. I suggest that it is very difficult to keep certain elements out of an organisation. This applies equally to the other side, whether it be the Union Movement, which is another Fascist organisation—
Mr. Douglas Jay: Smear.
Mr. Rose: It is not a smear. I hope that my right hon. Friend will listen to the argument. He regards it as a smear. It is no more a smear than the fact that the Union Movement and other Fascist organisations take the European point of view.
Mr. Jay: Give the names.
Mr. Rose: The point I seek to make is that this money will go to extremist bodies—
Mr. Jay: Give the names.
Mr. Rose: —on both sides of the fence which are not elected, which did not seek election at the last General Election, and which have no mandate.
Mr. Jay: Give the names.
Mr. Rose: I do not seek to attack one side or the other in respect of this. It applies to both equally.
Mr. Jay: What is a smear, and I do not think that my hon. Friend can have intended it, is to mention a body and not to give the name and not to give its address.
Mr. Rose: I did give the name.
Mr. Jay: My hon. Friend did not. He also hinted that the body concerned is associated with the National Front.
Mr. Rose: If only my right hon. Friend would listen. I gave the name, but he was so busy saying "Give the name" that he did not listen to the name. It was the Federation of Anti-Common Market Organisations. If my right hon. Friend is unaware of it, I will supply him with full details all of which have been published and I am prepared to supply him with all of them.
Mr. Jay: There are no such bodies. Mr. Rose: There are.
I was saying that money allocated by the House should not be allowed to go to unrepresentative organisations on either side. It is that point alone—it is not intended as a slur, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will accept—that I wish to make.
I find it distinctly curious today that the murmurs of disapproval in relation to the White Paper presented by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House seem to come from the very people who were most enthusiastic about the holding of a referendum and who obviously failed to appreciate the implications of so doing. The dangers of it were shown by the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), who only this weekend suggested that a further question relating to capital punishment should be tagged on.
The problem about such a course is that everyone has his own priorities. I am being asked, and I am sure this applies to many of my hon. Friends, "Why can we not have a referendum on capital punishment, on abortion, on immigration? "and on a host of other subjects about which people feel passionately. Although that can be countered by the constitutional argument, we all know that this can be the thin end of the wedge.
340
Above all, the referendum does not avoid division. It avoids a decision being taken by those who are responsible. The divisions are apparent even in this debate and they have not been avoided by this mechanism being used. Indeed, the divisions became very bitter indeed during the referenda in Norway and Denmark.
So having appealed to the referee, having got this decision in the form of the White Paper, we now have shouts of disapproval from those who most wanted the White Paper in the first place. The problem we now face is that we shall have to go into a referendum in a situation where those who most wanted it will no longer feel entirely bound by the results, because they will say that the question is unfair to start with. This was the very matter about which some of us uttered warnings when we embarked on the uncharted territory of a referendum in the first place. It is because of that that these people are already showing signs of disapproval.
I want to deal with one matter which was raised by the Leader of the Liberal Party. I should like the votes to be counted on a national basis. There are hon. Members opposite who, for very understandable reasons, would also like the vote to be based on the historic nations of Wales and Scotland. I should not like to see a vote cast in Wales or in Scotland which is not a vote upon the question of membership of the European Economic Community, in which I would hope that the regions will play an even greater part than they now do as the national States begin to lose some of their control. I should like the vote to be a vote upon the question of Europe and not upon the question of their status.
Further, if it turned out that we were within 100,000 votes one way or the other, I should like to know whether the votes of, say, Ulster decided the fate of my constituents. Many of us may be concerned about this.
Mr. Gwilym Roberts: On the question of separate counts for Wales and Scotland in particular, and in regard to the possibility of this being associated with devolution, may I refer back to the point my hon. Friend made about additional questions and the weird suggestion that non-constitutional issues might be

341
included? Does he not agree, however, that there is a constitutional issue as well involved for those two areas, namely, the question of new legislatures in Wales and Scotland? Would it not be useful, when having a separate count, to put in an additional question in Wales and in Scotland asking whether the people there want legislatures, because in Wales at any rate it seems very unlikely that they do?
Mr. Rose: My hon. Friend has illustrated my point about the thin edge of the wedge, namely, that once we start on this slippery slope there is no end to the questions which could be appended to the paper.
I believe that in a great political party like our own a decision should be taken, and it should be a Cabinet decision. When we were in Opposition we voted as a party on a three-line Whip against the principle of entry in Europe. I was one of those who defied that Whip. I make no apology for that. I take responsibility for my action I think that every Member of the House should take responsibility for his action.
How much more so in Government should a party with a Cabinet accept responsibility for its decision? I find it abhorrent that our party, having placed upon its members a three-line Whip in Opposition, should now in Government say that there should be one law for one side and one for the other.
It is the first and perhaps the most grave indictment of the referendum that one thing has been destroyed in this country, and that is the principle of collective responsibility of the Cabinet. That is the indictment of the referendum which above all should make my right hon. Friends think again. We are to have this referendum, but I sincerely hope that this is the first and the last time we shall play around with that sort of fire.
6.49 p.m.
Mr. James Molyneaux: I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) dissociated himself at the last General Election from his party's manifesto.
At an earlier stage the hon. Gentleman cast some doubt on the value of referenda. He said that very little notice
342
was taken of the overwhelming decision and verdict of the Ulster people when they were asked to say whether they wished to remain within the United Kingdom. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman that little notice was taken. I am only sorry that so few people in the House were then prepared to accept and are still unwilling to accept that decision as settling the matter for the foreseeable future.
There is much truth in what has been said against the idea of a referendum. I suppose that many hon. Members would agree that such a device is alien to our British constitution and incompatible with our system of parliamentary democracy. All that would have been true until the early part of 1972. Until that time those arguments were valid. But in 1972, which was a very bad year for British parliamentary democracy, they suffered two severe blows, not unrelated, delivered by the same hand.
The first blow was when the Prime Minister of the day, mandated to negotiate— nothing more, nothing less— drove his Government and party into this European entanglement in the face of fierce opposition in Parliament. It might be claimed that on Second Reading a majority of eight was adequate. But if we discount the 100 or so who were not exactly free agents, we cannot help feeling that that so-called endorsement, such as it was, was very far removed from the full-hearted consent of the British people. That being so, it is hardly surprising that there has been a demand that the people's opinion should no longer be suppressed and that alternative means ought to be found to give expression to that opinion.
The second blow to our parliamentary democracy was dealt when the freely elected Parliament of Northern Ireland was abolished "at a stroke ". No satisfactory reason was ever given. Indeed, when pressed, the then Prime Minister, in Pilate-like fashion, said that he could find no fault therein. It was just that the elected Ulster Parliament had to go. Let us not fool ourselves. It had to go because it committed the crime of accurately reflecting the views of the electorate.
The destruction of the Northern Ireland Parliament made the slide to a referendum inevitable. That was unconsciously

343
conceded by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) when lie said:
" This Government, and their predecessors, have given solemn and repeated assurances that the position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom will not be changed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland."— [Official Report, 24th March 1972; Vol. 833, c. 1862.]
The old reference to the Parliament of Northern Ireland had been deleted. We had
" the consent of the people of Northern Ireland."
There was therefore nothing left but a referendum. Unfortunately, many hon. Members supported its imposition on the people of Northern Ireland.
I submit that that was the primary cause for having this White Paper before us today. It was that primary cause, not the so-called differences of opinion within the Labour Party, that brought us to this position.
I turn now to the layout of the ballot paper. We have taken the view that the preamble, which we regard as prejudicial, should be omitted. If it is not there to influence, as the Leader of the House said, what is the purpose of having it?
We object to the word "stay" for reasons that have already been given by other speakers. It may acknowledge that we are in the EEC, but the whole basis on which the referendum is being considered is that the original decision to enter was taken without the authority of the British people. We submit that the word "be "should be substituted for "stay ".
As for the term "European Community ", we wonder why "Economic" has been omitted. We find that somewhat ambiguous. On those grounds we are a little suspicious. Indeed, there is a great deal to be said for the suggestion that the more familiar term "Common Market" might be used.
On publicity, it is not clear at this stage whether there are to be two sets of views from two umbrella organisations in addition to the Government's recommendation. If the Government's recommendation is to be the third element in this bit of light reading, surely it would be fair to give this in the form of a majority recommendation and a minority view.
344
I turn now to the count, on which Ulster Unionists have strong views. On the legislation providing for the Northern Ireland Border poll we took the view that, as the first question posed was,
" Do you want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom? ",
the test of opinion applied to Northern Ireland as a unit. We therefore thought that it might be logical that in this referendum the count should be conducted centrally and the result announced as one total. If on that occasion it was to be a Northern Ireland question, it followed that it should be a Northern Ireland answer. If we are to be consistent with this referendum, we must say that, in theory at least, as the question of membership of the EEC relates to the future of the United Kingdom as a whole, it follows that a central count and a central announcement of the total result would be most appropriate.
However, we appreciate that what may be logical may not be practical. If it is found impossible to conduct a central count, we feel that the only alternative is a count at constituency level as in a General Election. In a General Election we in Northern Ireland participate in the same way, under the same Act of Parliament, as any other part of the United Kingdom. In that event, the individual constituency verdicts make their collective contribution to the national outcome with all its consequences.
It should hardly be necessary for me to remind the House that Ulster Unionists are not separatists. Indeed, it would be a contradiction in terms if we were. We are therefore of the opinion that no advantage would be gained by obtaining a separate Ulster result as distinct from a United Kingdom verdict.
6.58 p.m.
Mr. Michael English: I was very puzzled at the beginning of the debate. The two opening speeches seemed strange indeed in that they were totally different not merely in political views, but in aim. I rather felt, until I realised the inaptness of the analogy, that they were like mediaeval knights who set their lances in rest, charged across the field at each other, totally missed, and ended up in the bushes on the other side.

345
For example, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, rightly in my view, went into some degree of detail on the way in which this referendum would be conducted, which is somewhat essential if we are to have a referendum.
On the other hand, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) went a great deal into high principle on whether we should have referenda or not without mentioning whether she wanted this particular referendum to be fair or unfair in any respect. The two speakers did not seem to be even on the same wavelength.
I felt that the wording of the speech of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition was a little inapt. There is another analogy. I would have said that her brief was showing— but again the terminology is not perhaps appropriate in the particular case. She made statements such as "Our system of government, which has been copied all over the world, representative government, does not use referenda." My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) pointed out that New Zealand, the country with a system of government most like our own, does use referenda, just as it had an Ombudsman before we did. That is something which we copied from it as well. Of all the countries in the world, New Zealand is the most like us. One can hardly say that our system of government has been copied all over the world when presidential systems are rather more common than parliamentary systems.
In any case I was not quite clear what the right hon. Lady meant when at one point she said— this was the essence of her case— that it was a bad thing that the Labour Government would not resign if their recommendation were defeated by the electorate. That is simply to put two questions instead of one. It is to say "Do you want to be in or out of the Common Market? "and" Do you like the Labour Government? "— if one were to make it an issue of confidence.
At another point the right hon. Lady said that one decision should "not be taken "— I think I quote her correctly—by the back door of a referendum on something else." Yet she wanted us, by the back door of a referendum on the Common Market, to allow the people to
346
decide whether they like a Labour Government. That is not consistent.
Finally, the right hon. Lady said that she was prepared to consider referenda in some respects— in relation, for example, to a written constitution or something of that character— but did not like this particular referendum. That is what her speech boils down to and I take it that some of her hon. Friends will vote with her upon this consideration.
I turn to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. This is of great importance. The main issue is of fairness in the conduct of this campaign, because whether we like or dislike referenda, to have a biased referendum will do our political system even more damage than those who dislike referenda think that a referendum will do in itself. There is no doubt that adopting referenda will change the basic system of British politics. I do not see any particular reason for assuming that we would suddenly go mad and have referenda on anything, but I agree with those who say that they cannot necessarily be limited. I would imagine that we should be at least as sensible as the Norwegians, who, in the last 70 years, have had four or five referenda, almost invariably on constitutional subjects. The common sense of this House would lead to that. But if we have referenda it is desirable that they should be fair, and as fairly conducted as we conduct General Elections.
That is where I disagree with paragraph 31 of the White Paper, because that paragraph raises a great constitutional issue. It does not talk, as my right hon. Friend said, about departmental information officers answering questions of the Press, as they do daily. It talks about the setting up of "a special information unit ", presumably of civil servants, to give on behalf of the Government to "the Press "…" factual information "and, above all,
" interpretation of the renegotiated terms and the like."
Whatever the like "is, I would not know.
This is disgraceful. It is dragging civil servants into politics. The equivalent in a General Election campaign would be to set up a unit of civil servants to give factual information and interpretations of the manifesto of one side, the manifesto

347
of the governing side— the manifesto of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), presumably, early in 1974 and that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson), a little later in the same year. This is a disgraceful proposal, which would disgracefully change our political system. Whether one is a pro-Marketeer or an anti-Marketeer, I think that one agrees that we should not involve civil servants in controversial electoral politics.
There is another point of importance which has been mentioned by many people. Before coming to that, perhaps I might say that I do not regard the count of the ballot papers as particularly important. I know that it is a matter of sensitivity to some of the Scottish and Welsh and others, but it is not the widest issue. The most important issues are the total of votes on each side, the majority and what influences those votes. Once they are cast, counting them is not as important as the way in which they are influenced before they are counted. This question is in itself of some importance.
The White Paper says, in the proposed question, "the European Community." Here my right hon. Friend and I disagree. He says that I am wrong, and I think that he is wrong. In the Act which took us into the European Communitiesplural— they were described as "the European Communities "— plural. This is as it should be. I have asked the Library of the House to check. I think that I had better read the letter that I have received because I asked the Library, having got the staff's first opinion, to check again and to produce a second opinion, which they have done in writing. The relevant paragraph of the letter is as follows:
"There is an aspiration to continue the process of the merger initiated by the treaty establishing a single Council and Commission to create a single Community in all respects. For practical purposes the interdependence of the three Communities in many fields and the existence of the three common institutions of Council, Commission and Assembly make the concept of ' the European Community ' a realistic one. It has become quite accepted usage in ordinary discussion. However, whatever developments there may be in future it does seem to me that legally the three Communities remain distinct and should, in strict technical correctness, be referred to as such."
The precise point that has been made by my right hon. Friend about the United
348
Kingdom is that it should be called the United Kingdom because that is legally its title. The "European Communities "is the legal title of all the Communities to which we belong in the treaty which established a single Council and a single Commission.
Mr. Douglas Hurd: Whether or not the description "European Community" or "European Communities" is more accurate, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that either would be an improvement on "Common Market ", which is simply a piece of inaccurate journalese?
Mr. English: I would certainly wish to see the legal title. This is neither fish, flesh nor fowl. It is neither a common title nor a legal one. It is a usage that does not legally exist.
This is rather like the situation of calling the European Assembly— its correct title in the treaties— the European Parliament. The European Parliament has decided to call itself that, even though it had no power to do so. But we need not go into that matter further
I have also consulted two or three Law Officers of the Crown on this issue. They do not understand it either. I should like to know where my right hon. Friend got his information from. He has said to me in public and in private that I am wrong. Fair enough. Will he please justify it and explain in detail, so that lawyers can understand it, where he gets his belief that "European Community "—singular—is the legal title of the institution to which we belong?
I understand that one of my colleagues — the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)— has tabled a series of Questions today asking where my right hon. Friend got his information from that this particular question was not biased, as other hon. Members say it is biased when it says "stay in ". If I say that the words should be "be in ", my pro-Market friends say that that is biased, too— it implies that we are not in. Perhaps the unbiased way is" hould we be in or out? "Then, if there were two boxes, saying "In" and "Out" instead of "Yes" and "No ", we would have completely catered for the issue. One either votes to be in or votes to be out.

349
One of the greatest difficulties in making a speech in a limited time is that I do not wish to seem totally critical of my right hon. Friend and the White Paper. The points that I am mentioning are points in respect of which I think there is bias, but I hope it is clear to my right hon. Friend and to the Minister of State, Privy Council Office that the points that I am not mentioning I do not regard as biased. Indeed, I regard them as very reasonable, particularly the comparison of the normal electoral procedure with the procedure on the referendum.
The paragraph in the White Paper on television and radio broadcasting is obscure, in that it does not really say anything. It does not say how many broadcasts there will be, and it does not mention ministerial broadcasts. However, we gather that there has been a considerable argument between the broadcasting organisations and the Government about ministerial broadcasts. The Government reject the view that a ministerial broadcast by the Prime Minister followed by a reply from the Leader of the Opposition should be put in the balance of the total pro-Market broadcasts. They do not like that view. Are they saying that they should be additional to the pro-Market total? I believe that it would be better, if we are to have ministerial broadcasts, to have two pro and anti broadcasts from Ministers and two pro and anti broadcasts by members of the Opposition.
The same issue arises with the White Paper on the terms. Throughout the debate nobody has mentioned the use of the shorthand word "Government" that is used throughout the White Paper. "Government" is a useful word. It is a collective word for a collective situation. However, in this instance, as has been pointed out, Ministers are not collective. I do not know exactly how many Ministers are in the Government. I think that there are nearly 114 Ministers and that there could be 185 if only 95 of them sat in this House. I believe that the number is between 100 and 114 in both Houses.
What we normally mean when we say that the "Government have decided" is that a Minister, or a few, or a sub-committee, or a committee of Ministers, or possibly a majority of the Cabinet, has taken a decision which all of them will collectively follow. We use the short-
350
hand word "Government" for whatever Minister is advising the Crown on what action must be taken. In this instance that will not arise, because the Government, in the sense of over 100 Ministers, will be saying opposite things.
" The Government ", as a majority, is a collective term, but I agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) that if we have a White Paper from the Government it should present the majority and minority points of view. After all, it will cost a lot of money. According to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, there will be a 16-page full-colour document, which will cost a little over £1 million. That is a little more than he is proposing to give by way of grant to both umbrella organisations put together. It is an addition to the weight of propaganda. If it is unbiased, fair enough. If it represents both the minority and majority views of the Government, fair enough. However, if it is biased it will completely bias the referendum in favour of one particular view. That is a matter of considerable importance.
Next, I turn to the challenge of the Leader of the Opposition when she said that we should discuss at some stage the principle of referenda. I wholeheartedly believe in democracy. That term to me means a majority of the citizens of a country in some way or another—[Interruption] There is no such thing as a perfect democracy. No voting system is perfect. The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), the Leader of the Liberal Party, spent most of his time arguing about the count, the least important matter. I suspect that he would disagree with me on the voting system that I happen to like. I would disagree with him on the voting system that he happens to like. Imperfection is a fact of humanity, but when hon. Members laugh at democracy they cannot claim that the Common Market is democratic. They cannot claim that a legislature which is a Council of Ministers sitting in secret is democratic. They cannot claim that a Commission whose two British representatives were appointed by a man who has since lost the confidence of both the country and his party is democratic in any way.
That is my principal objection. I am not an anti-European in the sense that

351
I dislike all things European. On the contrary, I like the referendum, and that is a European idea. I also like democracy. That side of European history I am prepared to accept. I do not accept the dark side of European history, which believes in a legislature that meets in secret, as happens in Brussels. It is a side that believes in the autocracy and bureaucracy rather than democracy. That is the side that I do not like. At the moment the Common Market's institutions are constructed in that way and not in democratic way.
I know that hon. Members who believe in the Common Market will say that they believe that the Common Market's institutions will become democratic. All I can say to them is that that has been the plea of dictators throughout the ages. General Papadopoulos was always going to introduce a democratic constitution but he never did. That did not happen until somebody got rid of him. However, I am straying from the subject.
In answer to the challenge of the Leader of the Opposition, I believe that the Government are absolutely right to have carried out a promise that was put twice to the electorate. What are those saying who intend to vote against the motion? Are they saying that we should break a promise that we made twice to the electorate in one year, namely, a promise to allow the electorate to decide for itself— a promise to which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) almost sacrificed a career and sacrificed his seat in the House for a time. [Interruption.] That may be his fault—
Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton): Where in the Labour manifesto for the October election is the word "referendum" used?
Mr. English: We said that we would put the issue to the British people. We made it clear that that would be done through a General Election or a referendum. I was present at a speech in Nottingham when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that in all probability it would be a referendum. That was made clear and the British people knew that. If the hon. Gentleman did not know, it is a wonder that he was elected for the Opposition.
352
The main issue is that we made our promise to the electorate on two occasions. It is a promise that the people believe we will carry out. They believe that they will have the chance to vote. It is their decision whether they wish decisions to be taken here or across the road, or far away in Brussels. We are giving them that chance. That is what the issue is about, and the matter must be carried out fairly.
7.18 p.m.
Mr. Julian Amery: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) painted with a broad brush and discussed the great issues that underlie the debate. Frankly, I believe that they have been dealt with pretty fairly by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and notably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood).
I direct my remarks to one issue that is on the surface a procedural matter although it has deep political and constitutional implications. It may be that the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, who has listened so patiently throughout our debate— and I pay tribute to his patience— can deal with it. If he cannot, there is time before the end of the debate for him to enter into the necessary consultations and to give us the appropriate answer.
In the Prime Minister's statement of 23rd January he told us:
" When the outcome of renegotiation is known, the Government will decide upon their own recommendation to the country."
He said that they— the Government— are going to tell us whether they are in favour of staying in or withdrawing. The right hon. Gentleman said that the announcement would
" provide an opportunity for the House to debate the question of substance ".
Presumably that means the question whether we should stay in or go out, as the Government may advise.
Now we know that there are different kinds of debate in the House. There are debates on the Adjournment and there are debates to take note. It has not yet been made clear to my knowledge by the Prime Minister or by the Lord President, or by any other Government spokesman, whether the Government will seek the approval of the House by putting a

353
motion before it asking the House to endorse the recommendation which they—the Government— recommend. That is to say, before the machinery for setting the referendum into operation and before the Order in Council, as presumably it will be, is moved to start the referendum procedure, the Government will have invited the House to endorse the recommendation that they will make to stay in or go out.
I hope that it is the Government's intention to do this already, and I hope that my remarks are unnecessary. If the Minister can say at once that there is no doubt that this is the Government's intention, I can bring my remarks to a conclusion in a minute or two. I have made one or two inquiries privately, however, and I have not been able to get a clear answer on this issue. I therefore thought it would probably be better to raise it in the House.
It seems an important point politically and constitutionally— politically for two reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. James) has put down a motion which is supported by a number of extremely distinguished right hon. and hon. Members, including a former Foreign Secretary, suggesting that there should be a third question— that the country should be asked whether it would prefer the House of Commons to decide the issue. I am inclined to think that to have a third question could promote difficulties could confuse the issue.
But all our people want to know and have a right to know the opinion of their own Members of Parliament and of others in politics, apart from members of the Government, to whom they may from time time look for a lead. I do not see how this can be done unless the Government put a clear motion to the House on which all of us would have to stand up and be counted here. What we say in our constituencies and in the referendum campaign is another matter. It is essential if the country is to be given a true lead and guidance that the Government must not only recommend but must secure endorsement by Parliament of their recommendation.
It is only if there is a clear lead, not only by the Government, and this is particularly true of a divided Government, but backed up by a clear majority
354
of Parliament, that the country can be asked to form a judgment on what is an immensely complicated issue.
It is also an important point for constitutional reasons. I am against holding a referendum for reasons which have been developed by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but there are degrees of evil in a referendum. If a referendum were to be introduced without the issue in question having previously been endorsed by Parliament, that would be going over the head of Parliament, by-passing Parliament, and that would be the executive appealing to the country in the plebiscitary form which we have seen adopted by dictators in the past. That would be completely wrong.
How do we limit the damage a referendum can do? It seems to me that if the Government not only make their recommendation but get Parliament to endorse it and then put the issue to the country, they will be seeking the country's ratification of a measure of which they and Parliament approve and on which they could argue, albeit speciously, that they have not got a mandate. This would be a much less damaging approach to the problem than if Parliament were bypassed and the appeal were made over the head of Parliament. If the country supports the recommendation of Government and Parliament there is no great problem and no very damaging precedent would have been set. If it rejects our common view I see no alternative but a dissolution of Parliament. Personally I believe the country would accept a clear lead from the Government endorsed by Parliament.
I believe that we should oppose— and I hope that many Labour Members will feel the same— the principle of the referendum. But I would fight not only the principle but the detail of the referendum Bill all the way and by every means possible if it were going to be undertaken over the head of Parliament, by-passing Parliament. But to me it would be a quite different situation if we could have an assurance from the Government that their recommendation would be followed by the moving of a motion seeking the endorsement of Parliament for that recommendation. Therefore, I ask the Minister, if he cannot reply immediately, to ensure that we may be told quite categorically

355
in the wind-up tonight that it is the Government's intention not only to recommend, not only to allow time for a debate, but to move a motion seeking the approval of Parliament for whatever recommendation they make.
7.25 p.m.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: In spite of the criticism that has been directed towards the White Paper in the debate I believe it to be balanced and reasonable. I recognise that pressure will be applied for it to be modified, and I understand that it may not be the last word on how public opinion shall be tested, yet I hope that there will be no change. I think, first, that the Government are right to insist on a national count and upon a single declaration of result. Secondly, I think that the vote concerns the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole and that we should pause before lending ourselves to a divisive operation that would threaten the unity of the United Kingdom. I must say to those who arc protesting otherwise that I believe they are merely pursuing narrow and sectional interests, though I understand those interests.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the hon. Member believe that because Denmark declared its referendum results according to polling stations its unity was threatened?
Mr. Duffy: If the hon. Member had permitted me to proceed, I might have met that point. I am reminded at this stage of a question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) who said that a central count was alien to our traditions. In the Ballot Act 1872 it was provided that all votes cast in an electoral unit— a constituency for parliamentary election, a ward for local elections or a Welsh county for the Welsh referendum on Sunday drinking— were collected at one central point and mixed up before counting. That is where it all started. I acknowledge that the practice was originally intended to preserve secrecy. It is in sharp contrast to Continental procedure. I hope that meets the point raised by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas).
Since the referendum will decide for the United Kingdom as a whole, as one unit,
356
it must surely be logical to require all the votes to be gathered together and mixed at one count, no matter how enormous.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), I believe that the question which the Government propose to print on the ballot paper is of crucial importance. Here again, I believe the right decision has been made.
As Britain is already a member of the EEC, the issue is surely the plain one of whether we should remain in or come out. Britain's membership is a fact that should properly be reflected in the referendum question. Britain went into Europe on a vote of a democratically elected Parliament. No one can gainsay that. No matter what the objections, that is how it happened.
Some of us were held to account afterwards. We all know of the notorious cases, but we do not know of the many other Members of Parliament who were in conflict with their constituency parties, sometimes in severe conflict, and were faced not merely with censure motions or motions of no confidence but with straight sacking motions. They had to argue their way out of that confrontation with their parties. They had not merely to get out of trouble but to mend fences, restore confidence and get back into a reasonable working relationship with their parties. Some of us know what that is all about, and are in no doubt that the decision was taken by a democratically elected Parliament. I do not know of one hon Member who, having eventually found himself in that position with his party, had not made his position plain to his party well in advance and had not repeated it and, in some cases, having been reselected because of the boundary changes, still made it plain.
Mr. McNamara: I am certain that no one disputes that the decision was taken by a democratically elected Parliament. The question is whether the issue was put before the people who elected that Parliament.
Mr. Duffy: I assure my hon. Friend that for my part— I suspect it is true of all those to whom I have been alluding, necessarily vaguely— I have argued about this since the beginning of the 1960s, and I cannot believe that there is a subject

357
that has been discussed longer and more thoroughly. That does not necessarily mean that it has been put over, or that it can be put over, but I believe that democracy has done its best in this matter.
When the decision was made in the House it was made properly. No one can now cry "Foul ", because that will not convince the contemporaries and it certainly will not convince the historians. The referendum's onus on the wisdom of that decision should be on those who want to take us out, because those who took us in explained it and in some cases made a stand for which they were held severely to account, and the majority was plain enough.
How easy the referendum must sound thus far, yet how difficult it may prove to be in reality. The arrangements that are being made for all-party umbrella organisations for both pro- and anti-marketeers suggest such a difficulty. Who will be recognised as their national leaders? My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) said that they may not even be elected. Whom, therefore, do they represent? What is their claim on public money? What is their claim on public time and on television and radio time?
If the major Labour and Conservative Parties do not campaign officially against membership— it seems unlikely that they will do so— the door will be wide open for the Scottish National Party to take the lead in Scotland. In England, the largest party against membership of the EEC looks like being the National Front. What of the composition of the various platforms, not merely the major umbrella organisations? What of the composition of the "Get Britain Out" platform, and what of the place of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)? It is clear that much hard work, political finesse and plain luck will be required to adapt successfully such a vast constitutional innovation as a referendum in the present state of British politics.
I suggest, first, that there must be no delay in holding the referendum. Secondly, this is not an issue which any Member of Parliament can evade, however tempting it may be for him to scuttle for cover. Thirdly, there must be no
358
dogfight over the constitutional place of a referendum in Britain's unwritten constitution. Fourthly, the campaign must be fairly fought. There must be no rabble-rousing.
Here I come back to the various platforms that may be composed over the next few weeks. Members of the Labour Party would be well advised to pay strict regard to the content of their campaign, as well as to the style. The only question that need properly and prudently concern them is: have negotiations been successful; has party policy been fulfilled? If the answer is "Yes ", is there a higher call, a greater duty, on them than to say so and to campaign accordingly? It Members of Parliament do that—I appeal to my colleagues to do it in a low key within their own constituencies— neither feeling nor money need necessarily intrude.
The referendum threatens to throw an intolerable strain on our political system of parliamentary government, on its underlying principle of responsible Government, and on the mechanisms that chiefly relate it to the people— the political parties of which we are all a part.
The Government made a pledge, which I will quote briefly from the Labour Party's February Manifesto:
"The Labour Government pledges that within 12 months…we will give the British people the final say, which will be binding on the Government— through the ballot box— on whether we accept the terms and stay in or reject the terms and come out."
I sympathise with those of my colleagues who still uphold the supremacy of Parliament. Some will still insist that Parliament, in any event, has no obligation to accept the result of the referendum, nor indeed the constitutional duty to accept any view outside Parliament. I take the view that the Government have preempted my rights in this matter because I campaigned on the basis of that manifesto, and so, I assume, did most hon. Members. I can understand, therefore, why the Government may feel able to suspend the rights of parliamentarians, but I do not see how any Government can abrogate their responsibility for their own conduct and record. Collective responsibility may become a casualty in this campaign. Our system of Government may survive, but not the obligation of Government to be responsible for their

359
own actions. Nor do I see how the Government can avoid a recommendation following the closure tonight of the renegotiations They must report and pronounce upon their actions. The Government can hardly avoid entering into a value judgment. At that point there will be a recommendation, no matter how it is presented—formally or otherwise.
I do not see how the Government can avoid resigning if the referendum goes against the Government's recommendation. I hope that I am wrong, but I am trying to proceed logically and I am proceeding in a way that is not tasteful to me. However, I repeat that I do not see how the Government can avoid resigning if the country goes against their recommendation. Indeed, I do not see how any of their supporters can duck the obligation. There is a duty on Government supporters at all times to preserve the Government in office, and that would require an underwriting of the recommendation. That means going out and campaigning for it.
Finally, I turn to the question of responsible government and collective responsibility, and the vehicles by which that responsibility is to be devolved. That function will result in motley alliances. Can members of the various parties join such alliances without risking their public image and their parties' credibility? Can rank-and-file Labour Members mingle with others on "Get Britain Out "public platforms? Can they mingle with Liberals, Conservatives, Communists— not to mention less orthodox political groupings— and not risk bringing their parties into disrepute? Can the situation be taken for granted and, when it is all over, will everything revert to normal, and will the authority of parties be restored to them?
What does the referendum really mean? I suspect that many of us are only now beginning to face the full implications of our commitment to a referendum, just as I suspect the Cabinet became aware of the implications only a few weeks ago.
I conclude by inviting the House to ponder on such questions as the following: does not the Government commitment to the electorate, despite the statement by the Leader of the House, impose
360
on party followers the duty to divest themselves of parliamentary sovereignty, however briefly? Will that commitment have any validity, and will it make any sense? Will the sovereign people accept the responsibility of their sovereign power and continue to face the consequences? Can the Government abrogate no matter how briefly, their responsibility to govern, and maintain credibility? Will the political parties— all major political parties— maintain their unity under the pressure which will arise in the next few weeks?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Since taking over the Chair, I have made a quick calculation which shows that if each hon. Member limits his contribution to 10 minutes, every hon. Member who is anxious to take part in this important debate could be accommodated. I hope Members will try to confine themselves to that space of time.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Neil Marten: I thought I understood the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) to say that he did not approve of his colleagues appearing on platforms with members of different parties. That is a most extraordinary thing to say, especially when one looks at the European Movement and sees that its joint Presidents are the Leaders of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Parties, and that they attend the same banquet, and speak together from the same table, let alone on the same platform.
I take exception to the fact that both the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe and the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) imported into the debate what I thought was a slight smear. They mentioned the National Front. If the debate on the Common Market is to be reduced to that level— and incidentally my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) does the same thing when he constantly shouts "Marxist "— it brings to my mind a recent headline in The Times, "Mao Tse-tung lauds Mr. Heath's policy on Europe ". Are the Maoists one's allies? After all, one of the greatest pro-Marketeers is Sir Oswald Mosley. Is he to be an ally? Surely we can forget that kind of argument and lift the debate to a higher plane.
Mr. James Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is an

361
old campaigner, but is he saying that because leaders of the major political parties sit at the same table at the Guildhall with the Lord Mayor on a social occasion that compares with the bitter fighting which will ensue on whether we go into the Common Market or come out of it?
Mr. Marten: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, but certainly in view of the shortness of time available for further debate, I shall not give way again. That occasion was a highly political one. The function at Guildhall was to promote Britain's going into Europe.
Mr. Duffy: The hon. Gentleman made a charge which should have a reply. There are no grounds for the hon. Gentleman's fears, as he will see when he reads my speech. I referred to the National Front in a certain context as being the largest single party in England which will come out against the Common Market.
Mr. Marten: I realise that the hon. Gentleman wants to rub in that point, and he took the opportunity of his intervention to do so. Looking at the situation of the political parties, some 30 per cent, of Conservatives in the country are against, over 50 per cent, of Liberals are against, and an even higher percentage of people in the Labour Party are against the Common Market. Those are debate-able figures. I also understand that a very large majority of people in the trade union movement are against the Common Market.
I have never regarded the Common Market as a party issue. I have ignored the Whip on the subject, and I believe that it should not be a party issue. Therefore, if I now deal with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), I hope that she will take my points as debating points and treat my remarks in the usual way in which she treats my remarks.
My right hon. Friend said that the Labour Party had no mandate for the referendum because it received only 38 per cent, of the votes at the last election. On that basis we had no mandate to take the country into the Common Market because we did not obtain 50 per cent, of the votes in the 1970 election. I think that point should be made.
362
Secondly, my right hon. Friend said that we should not regard this debate as decisive on whether we should have a referendum, but pointed out that the vote was a vote on the White Paper. The only time Parliament ever gave its full-hearted consent to going into the Common Market was in the debate on a White Paper. That has been claimed by pro-Marketeers. But tonight is a quite different occasion. We return to the old question of full-hearted consent.
When the then Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), said that it would be wrong for us to be members of the Common Market without the full-hearted consent of Parliament and the people, if he meant "Parliament" why did he mention people "? It is one of those obscure things. I have never understood it, and I have never heard an explanation. [An HON. MEMBER: "My hon.
Friend has never tried."] I tried many times in Parliament to get the answer. If it is said that the full-hearted consent of Parliament was given, the reply is that in that White Paper vote, which we are not allowed to consider tonight, although there was a majority of 112, only 56 per cent. of the Members voted to go in. That is consent, but it is not full-hearted consent. In the major vote, which was on Second Reading of the European Communities Bill, not even 50 per cent. of the Members were in favour. There was a majority of only eight. I hope that we can forget that sort of argument and get down to the point which I wanted to make concerning the referendum.
To whom does sovereignty belong? I believe that it belongs to the people, who give it to Members of Parliament at election time. Members give it back to the people when their Parliament ends and there is another election. The same applies under the French constitution. Annex B to the White Paper shows that under Article 3 of that constitution the position is exactly the same. Sovereignty in France belongs to the people. They give it to Parliament, which gives it back to them for a referendum. That is what we are doing.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup did precisely the same thing on Northern Ireland and again in February last year. Our party had a year and a half to run in office. My right hon. Friend

363
said We are in difficulties. We have a three-day week, and there is a confrontation with the miners." Therefore, he handed back his sovereignty to the people in what was in effect a referendum, asking "Do you want us to carry on with our policy? "That election was a referendum, though it was called a General Election.
The Labour Government were handed sovereignty by the electorate last October on the clear pledge that the Common Market issue would be put to the test at the ballot box in a referendum or a General Election. The Labour Party made a contract with the electors that if it were returned to office it would hold a referendum or an election. It is holding a referendum, and it cannot be blamed for that, because it is honouring a pledge. I hope that it is not the Conservative Party's case that the Labour Party should not honour a pledge which it gave at the election. I often wonder whether we should be the Government now if we had also pledged at the last election to have a referendum.
When Parliament agrees to a referendum it is handing back its sovereignty to the people. After the referendum, the people hand the sovoreignty back to Parliament, which always retains sovereignty over what shall be put to a referendum.
It is no good my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) on the Opposition Front Bench making his jokey speeches about the death penalty, because I do not think that Parliament would agree to have a referendum on the death penalty.
Sir Michael Havers: Why not?
Mr. Marten: Because it can always be reversed in the subsequent Parliament.
Sir Michael Havers: So can this.
Mr. Marten: I shall come to that argument, if I have time after all the interruptions.
Under Section 2 of the European Communities Act the electors found that their sovereignty in Parliament had been handed over to the European Community. Few people seem to realise that when we debate draft European legislation the Opposition can no longer move amendments
364
to it. We can seek to reject it, but we cannot amend it, nor can any back bencher seek to move an amendment, which is our right in our domestic law. To that extent, the electors right to use his Member to move an amendment to legislation has already been taken away.
More than that, we all know that the Common Market will have a directly-elected Parliament. I think that 1978 is the target date. It will one day be a legislative Parliament. That may not happen immediately, but no Parliament will simply twiddle its thumbs. It will move to become the legislative body for the Community. All right. It will be democraticaly elected. But suppose it has a Left-wing Socialist majority— a Labour Member would give the example of a Right wing majority— and it passes legislation affecting this country, which we should have to accept; and then this country elects a Conservative Government to put Conservative policies into practice here. That Government could do nothing to change the legislation passed by the Left-wing dominated European Parliament. That is the ultimate extent to which sovereignty will be surrendered if we stay in the Common Market.
I wish to end now because, with injury time, I have had nearly my 10 minutes. I wish to put some points on the White Paper. First, will the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man have a referendum, too? It is an important question, because they were taken into the Community.
I accept, with regard to the broadcasting, that the BBC and the IBA have an extremely difficult job. I have seen them both, and I believe that they will use their best endeavours to achieve a fair balance. Neither side in the House will regard it as fair, but the media will do their best.
I agree with the comments about the information centre. It will be a treat pity if the civil servants become involved in a deep emotional argument about the Common Market. If they are there, they will be interpreting both sides of the arguments. People will say that their interpretation is wrong. There will be pickets outside with banners saying "No" and "Yes ". It is fundamentally wrong that civil servants should be in such a situation.

365
I come to the question of the count, opinions on which are a personal matter. I should like to know how my constituents felt about the Common Market, and I should welcome counting by constituencies. It would be a mistake to hide the details from the public, because tellers outside the polling booth would give the result, though perhaps marginally less accurately.
I am against the proposal to have a question—and— answer section in the information document, a sort of Civil Service catechism. It is a silly idea, and I hope that it will not be followed up.
I assume that if we do not have the question-and-answer section we shall be allowed more than 2,000 words— probably 3,000. I hope that we shall not be pressed into writing them too early. I know the difficulties, but if we have to write them too early they may be off target by the time of the referendum.
As an anti-Marketeer, I obviously object to sending round a popular version of the White Paper, because if the Government support entry, as they may, it will make two documents for and one against. That could afterwards be regarded as unfair, if the referendum goes a certain way.
I agree with much that has been said about the question itself. The first half about the Government having announced the results of the renegotiations is redundant. It will be known that the renegotiations have taken place, so why put that in? The question is badly worded. It should be merely,
" Should the United Kingdom be a member of the European Community (Common Market)? "
That is totally unbiased— [Laughter.] I ask for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, against the mirth which that serious statement has occasioned. However. perhaps my hon. Friends will discuss it with me over a drink afterwards.
I think that the Government should consider seriously setting up a Referendum Commission of, say, three wise men — possibly three judges— who are acceptable to everyone, to which complaints about unfairness could be referred. People would feel much happier if they knew that anyone with an immediate complaint, say, against the BBC, could take it up with such a commission and the next day
366
have the matter put right without the need to go through a vast machinery.
The last matter to which I refer concerns the Norwegian referendum, which I attended. I did not take part in it, in spite of the result. I was merely an observer. The Norwegians had a tremendous programme of education on television and so on. Whereas, at the beginning of the referendum campaign, people said that they did not know what it was about, at the end they did know.
The one matter on which the Norwegian people voted was the one matter on which we shall vote when it comes to it. It is not a question of economics, of agriculture or of alternatives. It is the one matter which the Norwegians decided: did they want the power of their Parliament passing ultimately from Oslo to Brussels. They said "No ". That will be the issue in this referendum: do we want the power, independence and self-government of this country ultimately passed over to Brussels. I hope that the country will say "No ".
8.2 p.m.
Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), with whom I have participated in many late night debates on European secondary legislation, will be suprised to learn that, in principle on this issue, I am in a measure of agreement with him.
My starting point is somewhat different from that of most hon. Members since I have long been a supporter of British participation in the European Community, but I have also been in favour of a referendum on the issue ever since it was first raised by the Macmillan Government in the early 1960s.
I have always favoured a referendum because I believe that the issue of entry into Europe is different in kind from the wide range of issues normally considered by Parliament. What is at stake is the issue of sovereignty, and the failure of Governments of both parties until 1974 to bring this out into the open has only harmed and not helped the cause of Europe.
All hon. Members will agree that Parliament is the supreme power in the land. Historically, its supremacy derives from its twin powers as the supreme judicial court and its right to authorise taxation.

367
According to Sir Edward Coke,
"…the power and jurisdiction of Parliament is so transcendent and absolute that it cannot be confined either for causes or persons, within any bounds."
In the words of a more modern author, Berriedale Keith,
"… the sovereignty or omnipotence of Parliament means that Parliament is the supreme power in the State, in the sense that it can make or unmake any law; that the courts will obey its legislation; nor is there any power in the State capable of overriding, curtailing or proscribing its authority."
Let me isolate in the first of those three points the ability of Parliament to unmake any laws. It means that no Parliament can curtail the powers of subsequent Parliaments— an attribute of Parliament that was demonstrated at least as early as the sixteenth century.
This is one of the crucial issues of the whole debate on Britain's entry into Europe.
Already it is being argued— it was argued by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House today, correctly, in my opinion— that for Britain to withdraw from the Community would involve prohibitive economic costs. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), long noted for his opposition to British entry into the EEC, has now decided that Britain has no option but to stay in for that reason. If this is the case after only two years of membership, how much more will it be the case after a decade?
In theory, it may still be possible to withdraw. In practice, the process is virtually irreversible.
Mr. Marten: In defence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who has been a member of the European Assembly for one and a half or two years, the reason for his change of heart has nothing to do with the economy or with the alternatives. It is merely the constitutional matter which concerns him. He takes the view that we should not come out, because if we did we should break a treaty. It is the treaty argument and not the economic argument on which my right hon. and learned Friend sticks.
Mr. MacFarquhar: I accept that, but there are many reasons why people are
368
coming to the conclusion that we should not withdraw— constitutional, costs— and the longer we stay in the more cogent the arguments will be.
The action of going into the EEC, in practice, has bound and therefore limited the powers of future Parliaments, and the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) would have been more frank if he had admitted that.
Moreover, the likelihood is that this process wil take place in the future not merely in practice but also in law. The hon. Member for Banbury spoke about the prospective development of a European Parliament, which I personally support. It seems inevitable— it is only honest to ask hon. Members to face this — that the present European Assembly will be transformed into such a Parliament and that at that point it will take over the supreme powers of the British Parliament.
At the moment, it is still possible for the British Parliament to reject any of the myriad draft instruments which we discuss late at night. But at that stage, if there were a European Parliament, it is most unlikely that this House would be able to reject this most important legislation. Parliament, therefore, would no longer be the supreme body.
It is the central thesis of my argument that because Parliament is to be put into a position where it will no longer be able to unmake laws, where it will no longer be the supreme body controlling the destinies of the people of this nation, it is essential that the British people be consulted before this constitutional transformation becomes irreversible. While the people elect their representatives to exercise supreme powers on their behalf, they do not elect them to concede some of those powers in perpetuity to a superior outside body. Therefore, if those powers are to be diminished by entry into the Common Market, the British people must give their consent, and that consent can be given only in a referendum, because only through a referendum can the issue be isolated.
I am well aware that it is historically true that in a few cases Parliaments have, on their own say-so, given up their supreme powers. The Bare Bones Parliament in the seventeenth century conceded powers to Cromwell. However,

369
that is not an example which is likely to commend itself to hon. Members. Moreover, all the examples are prior to the modern period when the struggle between the Sovereign, the Lords and the House of Commons had not been settled in favour of the House of Commons. It is my contention that, once that struggle was settled in favour of a House of Commons which owed its mandate to the people, it was not legally possible for the House of Commons to give away any of its powers without consulting the people.
I am also aware of the other counter-argument, that hon. Members are elected as representatives to exercise the supreme power of Parliament on behalf of their constituents. In putting forward the case of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) referred to the speech of Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, in the debates of 1910 and 1911. I am sorry that the right hon. Lady did not quote him in full when he put forward the classic argument and rejected the argument for a referendum on 22nd February 1911. He said then that the people
"… should choose their representatives and then trust them and give them a fair chance within the limits of their commission for a period which should not be unreasonably prolonged."— [Official Report, 22nd February 1911; Vol. XXI, c. 2035.]
It is precisely my case that the limits of our commission as Members of Parliament is that we can exercise the supreme powers of Parliament but not concede them irreversibly to any other body without prior and specific consultation. A referendum is the unique, final instrument of modern democracy for achieving such consultation. This was clearly recognised by a noble Lord who participated in those debates on the referendum in 1910 and 1911, and it is not good enough for the Leader of the Opposition to attempt to shut up all the skeletons in the cupboard.
Whatever the motives of the speakers who proposed referenda in those early days, there is no question but that they were aware of the constitutional implications and dealt with them fully. The noble Lord stated that the referendum is
" essentially democratic in its character. Its basis is the belief, to which we all, on both sides of the House, give expression in our public utterances, that in the last resort we accept the will of the people, and I am at a loss
370
to understand why, when it is put forward in this proposal, it should be greeted with so much doubt and, apparently, with so much dismay by those who profess to be the teal representatives of the democracy in this country."— [Official Report, House of Lords 24th November 1910; Vol. VI, c. 946–7.]
That was not a Labour life peer— they did not exist then— nor a Liberal peer, but a member of the Pantheon of the main opposition party today, Lord Curzon.
Why do not hon. Members opposite heed him now? Perhaps he is too flamboyant for this day and age. In that case, I quote a more sober statesman, Mr. Balfour, an ex-leader and Prime Minister of the Conservative Party. He said, in the same debates:
"The referendum, at all events, has this enormous advantage that it does isolate one problem from the complex questions connected with keeping a Government in office, and with other measures which it wants to carry out and with other questions of foreign and domestic policy. It asks "—
and this is the important part—
" the country not ' do you say that this or that body of men should hold the reins of office? ' but, ' do you approve of this or that way of dealing with a great question in which you are interested?'."— [Official Report, 21st February 1911; Vol. 21, c. 1758.]
I should particularly like to draw the attention of the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley to that final section of the quotation, because she attacked the Government on that point.
Mrs. Thatcher: I read all these speeches in all the debates. As I said, there are arguments on both sides. The fact is that until now we have never had a referendum throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, and after this things will never be the same again.
Mr. MacFarquhar: I was not doubting that the right hon. Lady did her own research, but I think that when she does it she ought to bring the important fruits of it to the attention of the House.
Mr. Tim Renton Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex) rose—
Mr. MacFarquhar: No.
I want to draw the attention of the House to Mr. Balfour's correct prescription that whatever the result of a referendum it should not be taken as a vote of confidence. That is why I interjected No "when my hon. Friend the Member

371
for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) suggested that the Government might resign on this issue.
I should like to suggest further to the right hon. Lady that even the leading speakers against the referendum 65 years ago were not consistent. I raised the example of Churchill earlier. Mr. Asquith, the Prime Minister of the day, indicated that he was against regular referenda, but not against a referendum to solve a major constitutional problem. He said:
" I say quite distinctly that I reserve the question of the appropriateness and the practicability of what is called the referendum as possibly the least objectionable means of untying the knot in some extreme and exceptional constitutional entanglement."— [Official Report, 29th March 1910; Vol. 15, c. 1173.]
Entry into Europe is precisely an "extreme and exceptional constitutional entanglement ", and that is why it demands a referendum. Those who argue that the people are not competent to decide on this issue are arguing not against referenda, but against democracy itself.
8.14 p.m.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: It was on 22nd January of this year that in answer to a Question that I had put down, the Prime Minister announced, to the great pieasure of my party, his intention to hold a referendum. We are pleased to have the opportunity to give our views to the Government who have asked for them on the various aspects of the White Paper.
We have always believed in the weapon of a referendum. Long before the EEC was even on anyone's agenda we regarded it as the most democratic of tools, and we do not regard it as a fearsome weapon. We do not believe that a normal Parliament will become referendum trigger-happy. There is no evidence to suggest this. Democracies as well respected as Australia, Denmark, Italy, France, Norway, the Republic of Ireland, Switzerland and others have not become trigger-happy. They have limited the use of this ultimate weapon to a few important and outstanding issues.
I am not saying that they have all taken the same definition of the issue. In the same way, this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament may take different definitions, but I do not think we have
372
to fear that there will be a referendum every month, every year or even every decade.
I have little sympathy with those who say that the public will not understand. After all, the issues at a General Election are much more complex to any conscientious elector. There are many aspects to be taken into account at a General Election, and if electors can that, and if we trust them with taking a big decision then, surely we can trust them when we narrow the issue to one matter only.
To those who have raised the red herring of a referendum on Scottish self-government, I say that my party has always wanted one and would welcome it at any time, on this referendum or on any other occasion. However, as we know that that is not what the House is discussing, I do not propose to say any more about it except that we would welcome a referendum or a General Election on the issue next week or at any time. As the Minister said, we have recently had t General Election. We were only 5 per cent. behind the Labour Party, but we were 5 per cent. ahead of the Conservative Party, so we want another election soon.
My party strongly holds the view that the count should be taken constituency by constituency, and this view appears to be held right across the board in all political parties. The first person to sign my motion on the subject was the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) who asked whether he could sign it. I did not have to pressurise him into doing so. Many people in many parties agree with this view, and I should like to show why it is logical.
There are two basic views of the rôle of a Member of Parliament. He is either a man chosen to make the decisions, and having been chosen for that period he makes them, or, if one believes that a referendum is a sensible and ultimate tool, while he is geographically responsible, in this instance, though not in all, he must consider the views of his constituents who vote on the matter. It is illogical to take the second rôle and to say that it is for the constituent to decide the matter and then to tell the Member of Parliament that he cannot be allowed to know what his constituents say about it.

373
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) referred to this. My party means to find out how people vote. If we are cheated out of the truth about the facts, we shall find out by democratic methods. We shall take sample polls. In some constituencies we shall take total polls. We shall have tellers at the gates. We shall adopt all manner of methods to find out how people voted.
I had a public meeting attended by 2,300 people. I did not share the platform with any other party. The meeting was under the auspices of my party. If we are to find out, how much better it would be if the answers given to us were authoritative. If the votes go against us, we shall have to accept that.
Mr. James Sillars: Is the hon. Lady aware that she might be treading a dangerous path on the constituency count basis and that it is possible to get an overall answer which differs from that, constituency by constituency, in the House?
Mrs. Ewing: I understand the pitfalls and I have given them careful thought. I have a geographical responsibility for my electorate and I would like to think I knew their wishes. If we are to give them the vote it seems pointless if I do not know their wishes. I will take what is coming to me after that by way of any pitfalls or difficulties.
The White Paper seems to be totally illogical. It cannot have been framed by a member of the legal profession. It says in the pre face
"… advantage be taken of procedures and safeguards which long experience has shown to be effective and which are familiar to the voters."
That is normal United Kingdom thinking for elections. Then it refers to a central count. A central count is not in accordance with the precedents of other countries, listed at the back of the White Paper. In Australia it was each State, in Italy it was by way of each commune, in New Zealand it was each electoral district, in Switzerland it was at canton level, in the United States of America it was by counties and cities, in Denmark it was each polling station, in France, each département, in Norway and the Republic of Ireland by constituencies.
374
All the countries which are accustomed to referenda have found that this is the practical way to do it. The White Paper says that it is widely accepted that it should be done by a central count. It certainly will not have "the widest acceptance "in Scotland where if the truth is kept from the people they will be resentful. Whatever their views on the issues they will feel that a smokescreen has been put up. The Secretary of State for Industry has publicly agreed with this view. He is on record as saying that if we try to hoodwink the people of Scotland they will be angry and turn against us. The Government would find themselves a laughing stock. I think it is ill-advised to persist with a central count. I ask the Government to think again.
I refer to an article in The Scotsman which says that there could
" only be one reason why the Government should want to count votes on a United Kingdom basis, because it fears that the results tabulated constituency by constituency or by county would give ammunition to the Nationalists."
If members of my party were political Machiavellis we would say, "This is a marvellous grievance, let us continue with the central count."
If Scotland were against and England were for, that would be good ammunition. I am speaking against the interests of my party.
In 1972 a majority of Scottish Members of Parliament voted against entry to the Common Market. Scotland was included with the rest. That has caused resentment, in Scotland, rightly or wrongly. To try to conceal the results in a central count would cause similar resentment. We would be removing democratic rights if we were to do that.
I greatly value my right of scrutiny in the present electoral system. I am sure that all hon. Members do. They send every available scrutineer to every count. They watch the sealing, the counting and the opening of the boxes. When the results are announced everyone is fairly sure that it is as accurate as possible. However, even then mistakes are made. I have a vulnerable majority of 367. It was found that 1,000 of my votes were in a file with my opponent's name on the top paper. However, we were able to clear that up, and I am here today.

375
We must take the right of scrutiny seriously. These rules and regulations were hammered out over a long period to make certain that, when the result is declared, it is correct. If there is to be a central count I shall sit on top of my boxes in the guard's van until they reach the counting centre, whether it be Westminster Hall or Earls Court. We cannot have a situation where Members of Parliament cannot scrutinise. How could we afford five days to do the count? Think of the delay. The worst result is that from the Outer Isles, the Shetland Islands, because of the distance. Even those results are announced before the Sabbath day. They are announced on a Saturday. Imagine having to wait five days when we could virtually have the result the next day. It does not seem to be sensible.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Leaving aside the rather glorious picture of the hon. Lady in the guard's van, the hon. Lady has said that she wanted a separate Scottish count because she believes that Scotland could stay out of the Common Market if England decided to stay in. Is this not contrary to the view that the hon. Lady expressed earlier in her political career, when she is on record as saying that England in the Market meant Scotland in the Market? Has the hon. Lady changed her views?
Mrs. Ewing: This is going back many years, to 1967. I said that with such a high percentage of our exports going to England, obviously if England were in then Scotland should be. I hope that people in England will vote against it. Since I said that in 1967 a certain black gold has been discovered in the Scottish sector of the North Sea off the Shetland coast—[Interruption.] That is still part of Scotland. That slightly alters the situation. Scotland has a total option irrespective of England's choice. That is my belief shared by the speakers in many recent television discussions and by no less an august personage than Sir Christopher Soames. Scotland's position is entirely different from England's because of our self-sufficiency in so many spheres.
Who are the independent advisers? I have had an answer to one of my questions
376
about the Post Office counters. How many ballot boxes would have to go missing before it could be said that the count was invalid? In what circumstances would a recount be granted? What is the margin of error? This is not a dead issue, because there will be opinion polls between now and the date of the referendum, which I hope will be an early one. Samples will be taken. I urge the Government to think again about a central count. I identify myself with the questions posed by the hon. Member for Banbury and his remarks on the framing of the question. The use of the word "stay" suggests status quo, which gives an unfair advantage to one side. The preamble certainly gives an unfair advantage to one side. My simple suggestion for a question would be:
"Common Market: In or out? "
The NOP recently conducted a poll which proved that the question can be varied in such a way as to bring about a difference of 8·6 per cent. Thus, unless there is an overwhelming result the framing of the question is of importance.
I believe that it is wrong for the Government to issue two documents to the electors. There should be separate Scottish information in so far as it is different, as it is in regard to exports and where those exports are increasing— which is not in the EEC. The Scottish situation is different as it affects energy, fishing and agriculture. Will there be any additional and separate information about Scotland?
I am concerned about the fact that the European Movement is to give money to the Conservative Party in this campaign. Will that come under the financial limits? A referendum could properly have been held on the EEC issue quite irrespective of whether the Government were renegotiating. The wording at the beginning of the White Paper seems to suggest that the information to be given should not be limited to renegotiation. In this connection I align myself with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). The White Paper says:
" a referendum would be held on whether the United Kingdom should continue as a member of the European Community or should withdraw."
The White Paper is not framed in a way which asks whether we should approve the renegotiated terms. If

377
information is to be sent out in documentary form it will be necessary for it to include not only what has been accomplished in the renegotiation but also information about the merits and demerits of the Market. I have in mind such things as what it has cost us up to now and how we have benefited. What promises were made about the balance of payments and what is the sordid situation now? What was promised about the free movement of labour and how has it worked out, for example, in Germany where all those guest workers are living in rather dubious circumstances.
We should know what was promised about growth rates and what the facts are now. We should be told the same about jobs and wages. Shall we be told about the 40 per cent. increase in unemployment in the EEC? While it is said that prices are rising everywhere, will it be pointed out that they did not go up by the same amount in Norway?
If there is to be a document, and there may be something to be said for no document, is it to be about the renegotiation or will it include merits and demerits? Will it say that renegotiation did not cover the vital area of fishing? If so, will it say why not? The sovereignty of Parliament is not the law of Scotland. The sovereignty of the people is above the sovereignty of Parliament according to the Scots constitutional law.
On 23rd January the Prime Minister promised that he would consult the Lord Advocate about this and advise me. Has he done so yet? If the Lord Advocate is not present, perhaps he can write me a note. This is a different situation and it is worth thinking about how it fits into the referendum situation.
In case anyone is interested in how my party will vote tonight, I can tell the House that we so strongly support the idea of a referendum that we shall go into the Lobby to support the Government. That is a basic plank in our policy, and it always will be. We feel very strongly about the count, however, and if an attempt is made to prevent the people of Scotland from getting access to all the information available within a democratic framework, we shall have to review our position when the necessary legislation comes before the House.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: I shall not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) too closely. I do not mind very much whether the count is taken on a constituency basis, a county, or a district basis. I shall take what comes. My constituents at the last election and at every election during the last 10 years knew exactly where I stood on Europe, and nothing has happened during that decade to persuade me to change my mind.
What we are discussing tonight was, if I may say so without doing too much damage to her reputation, put admirably by the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition. We are using this instrument to keep my party united— that and nothing else. That is the only reason for it. That is the only reason for putting this proposition in our election manifesto. I said so at the last election. I made it very clear that I was against the referendum in principle. I think it is a constitutional outrage. I think parliamentary democracy will never be the same again.
It was very idle and almost irresponsible for the Prime Minister to say, a few weeks ago, that it would be used only in connection with this kind of matter. It is not for him to say that. Once the principle has been accepted, other Governments will eventually take over, and other Prime Ministers and other administrations will decide, if it is to their advantage, to use a referendum on this, that or the other issue.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, when he opened the debate, talked about the nuts and bolts of this issue. I wonder whether there have not been rather more nuts than bolts. Paragraph 31 of the document states:
" It is to be expected that there will be a substantial additional flow of requests to the Government for factual information…"
But the Government will not be the Government. There will be two sets, if not three sets, of Government advisers in this matter. Will someone be able to telephone and say "May I please have the interpretation of the Secretary of State for Industry or the Secretary of State for the Home Department?" There will be at least two interpretations from the Government and, irrespective of what the civil servants say, the interpretation

379
of the facts by the civil servants will be different, as there have been different interpretations in this House during the last few months. Different interpretations have been put on the same figures by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for Industry. The public will be subject to different interpretations of the same facts by different Ministers. The public will not be sure of the facts, and still less sure of their interpretation when they ring up this mysterious office.
The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) asked whether, after the renegotiations that are to be completed— one hopes tonight— in Dublin by the Prime Minister, a part of the Government— I do not know which part — will come forward with a recommendation on the question whether or not the people should accept that we have reached a satisfactory renegotiation posture.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government recommendation would be put before the House for debate. My recollection may be wrong, but I think I am right in saying— I hope I am not giving away party secrets— that the Prime Minister, at one of our party meetings, gave a specific undertaking that a recommendation would be put before the House on the results of the renegotiated terms and the House would have a vote. I presume that it would be a free vote, because the Prime Minister has already said that Ministers would have a free vote. Therefore, I shall claim no less rights than any Minister.
The Government will make a recommendation, and let us assume that that recommendation is approved by the House and that the question then framed is "Your sovereign Parliament, elected at the last election, has decided that the Government, who were elected last October, have reached a satisfactory renegotiated position. We therefore recommend to you that we should stay in the Common Market." People will be asked to answer "Yes" or "No".
If the people were to say "No ", there is no shadow of doubt but that the Government could not possibly survive, or, if they did, they would lose all credibility. This institution, too, would lose credibility, because the people would rightly say "What is the use of engaging in this
380
kind of charade and then, when we reject their advice, they still stay put? "
The House can never be the same again after such an exercise, which is to be done for the sake of preserving a facade of unity in a political party. I speak for my party only— in fact, I do not even speak for my party. I speak for myself. It is well known throughout the country and in my party that this is a device for trying to keep us together. It may well be laudable. There is nothing wrong with that. But let us not pretend it is otherwise. Let us not pretend to the people that it is to protect their sovereignty.
" Sovereignty "is a meaningless word. Nobody ever defined it. When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary went to Brussels and asked "What do you mean by political union?" nobody could answer. Nobody has yet defined for me what "sovereignty" means.
To pretend that this country, in or out of the Market— especially out— could continue on its own is nonsense. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) knows better than anybody that for us to pretend that we have anywhere else to go, if we get out. is blatant nonsense and a deception of the people.
We are not discussing the merits of the question whether we stay in or get out. We are discussing the merits of this constitutional device, this constitutional piece of opportunism.
I greatly regret that this debate is taking place at all. I greatly regret the White Paper. It bears all the evidence of a hotchpotch of ideas flung together, flung at us and flung at the people.
At my constituency Labour Party meeting last Sunday I argued that there should be another question on the paper. This proposition has been made more than once in the House. People should have the right to say "We prefer to leave this issue to the judgment of those whom we elected last October." That is what we are elected for. We are elected not for where we stand on a particular issue but on a whole range of principles and a philosophy. We are judged on that periodically in a General Election.
None of the other countries that have referenda has a Government superior to

381
ours. I have travelled a good deal since I became a Member of the House and I have not seen a better form of Government anywhere than we have.
Mr. Whitehead: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. However, does he not agree that at the last General Election we were returned to power on the basis that we would have a referendum— not that we would have a referendum about having a referendum?
Mr. Hamilton: We did not say any such thing.
Mr. Whitehead: We did.
Mr. Hamilton: We never mentioned a referendum. The word "referendum" was never used. We said that we would consult the people through the ballot box. If we were now going to the country at a General Election I should not be making the kind of speech I am now making. I agree that the people should be consulted in a General Election but not in a referendum. I said at the last election that I did not believe— and I do not believe— in referenda. I believe in the sovereignty of Parliament. This is a negation of that principle.
8.42 p.m.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: I will not follow the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) in all his arguments on constitutional theory. Suffice it to say that I accept the Scottish principle of the sovereignty of the people. Our position about a referendum is that we as elected Members are handing back a decision to the electors on a specific constitutional issue.
It is possible to distinguish between a referendum in relation to amending the constitution and other types of possible referendum issues. We are in the unfortunate position of not having a written constitution. The sooner that is put right the better in terms of the devolution of power within the United Kingdom. When we have a written constitution, it will be possible to distinguish between issues which will amend the constitution and issues of general domestic and public policy.
This distinction is made in most Western European democracies which have the referendum as part of their consultation process with the electorate. This
382
is a view which my party upholds very strongly.
As has already been said today, we are to have a major second referendum in Wales this year on the question of the opening or closing of public houses on Sundays. It has been suggested that a saving in public money might result if both were held on the same day— not on a Sunday, of course— with the added stipulation that those who voted "Yes" in one would have to vote "No "in the other.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Would the hon. Gentleman agree with a referendum on devolution?
Mr. Thomas: Yes. I am coming to that very point. The Government have argued that the referendum principle is appropriate only to constitutional changes in the external relations of the United Kingdom. I argue strongly in favour of having a referendum on the internal constitutional relations of the United Kingdom. In these days, on the issues of EEC membership and devolution we have an incredible crossing of party divisions. An EEC Commissioner who is a member of the Conservative Party— I believe that he is still a member— came to Wales and advocated devolution only the day after the party's spokesman in the House on Welsh affairs condemned it in a speech at Kingston-upon-Thames— an ideal location for a speech on the question of devolution, one would have thought.
Clearly the devolution issue is an obvious candidate for a referendum. I believe strongly that there should have been a referendum on the question of internal constitutional changes in the United Kingdom following the publication of the Kilbrandon Report. I put it to the Government— not in this context, but in a future context— that if they have the faith that they say they have in their constitutional proposals and their acceptability they should seek to put those proposals to a popular test.
I turn now to the details of the EEC White Paper. I have tried to read it as an objective document— I always try to read White Papers objectively— but I conclude that this document has been ghost written by the Government on behalf of the European Movement. The arguments in this document are incredibly similar to an article which appeared in

383
New Europe recently on the lessons for Britain of the Irish, Norwegian and Danish referenda. Section 4 of the White Paper on Government information activities is a toned down version of the proposals put forward in that article for a fully blown Government propaganda machine— what it calls an educational exercise. But the toning down has not been done well enough. The proposal in paragraph 31 for a special information unit of civil servants to be concerned with so-called "interpretation "of the renegotiation terms is a smaller scale model of what the European movement has proposed.
The phrasing of the question on the ballot paper coincides incredibly with the European Movement's authorised version of the question, which is:
" Do you approve the terms now negotiated (or recommended) by the Government (or Parliament) for continued British membership of the European Community? "
The White Paper has split up the sentence and given us a short preamble, but it has given a far more heavily loaded verb.
Mr. Hurd: I assure the hon. Gentleman that those of us who are thinking of campaigning on the opposite side from himself are disappointed with the White Paper in this respect. We think it is wrong that the information unit should wait for questions to come to it. Such is the appetite for objective information on the part of the public, we think that the Government ought to take the initiative in circulating the facts as opposed to the arguments put forward by the two sides.
Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman confirms my view entirely. I am not surprised that he is disappointed that the whole of the Government's propaganda machine is not geared up for this exercise.
The Irish, Norwegian and Danish questions were more neutral in the way that they were structured.
Mr. John Roper: Is it not the case that in the other countries the form of the question depended upon alterations to their constitutions, which does not apply in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Thomas: That is the point. The great advantage of having a written
384
constitution is that one can tie up amendments to the constitution in a neutral way, not the emotive way in which it will be phrased in this question. I still believe that, despite the fact that it is not convenient to link it to a constitutional amendment, it is possible to make the question far more objective. I believe that that must be done.
It is on the question of the control of expenditure that the European Movement's arguments have most obviously been accepted by the Government. The European Movement has argued that there should be no limitation on spending by campaigning groups and that at the same time there should be no Government financing of those groups. That was clearly aimed to give the multinational companies, which are pouring money into the European Movement, a free hand. These sources of funds enabled them to appoint an anti-Socialist former Labour Member of Parliament as their Welsh organiser— a part-time job for which he is getting a fat salary.
At the same time the European Movement wants to ensure that there will be no public funds available for a balanced projection of the arguments. It wants to have the same walk-over in terms of financial resources in the campaign as it had in Ireland where the pro-Market funding outpaced the anti Market funding by 10 to one.
In my view, there must be control of spending exercised in the same way as at parliamentary elections with a register kept of all campaigning organisations and returns made for the amount spent by each organisation in each constituency. There should be a similar limitation on central funds for a United Kingdom-wide campaign. I believe that such a limitation is long overdue at general elections. It is high time that Aims of Industry had to make election returns, or, for that matter, my own union.
The devising of effective regulations for limiting spending is more important than subventions from public funds for campaigning. I believe that we must have both. In Norway, for example, the equivalent of £10 million was allocated both to political parties according to parliamentary strength and to pro- and anti-campaign organisations without

385
specific conditions. This is an example which the Government ought to follow.
Controls similar to these on funding for campaigning must also be extended to broadcasting. The balance of current affairs programming is, of course, a matter for the broadcasting authorities, but the BBC and the IBA can, I hope, be relied upon to be fairer in their treatment of reporters and participants in programmes than the Financial Times.
However, I am concerned about the way in which political broadcasts, the referendum equivalent of General Election party-politicals, are to be organised. Paragraph 33 of the White Paper is silent about control of these. The European Movement wants these broadcasts done as party-political broadcasts for a General Election, saying that
" It would be left to each political party to determine whether and how much weight they would give in their political party broadcasts "—
Mr. Roper: As an officer of the European Movement. I am most interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. If he is referring to an article written in a personal capacity by the director of the European Movement, the hon. Gentleman is referring to the director's views, which are not necessarily those of the movement.
Mr. Thomas: I am grateful for that intervention. Does the hon. Gentleman, therefore, take the view that what appears in the official journal of this movement is not the official policy of the movement, even when it appears under the director's name?
Mr. Roper: Articles in New Europe are written under the authority of the author, and that is made clear.
Mr. Thomas: That was clearly not specified in the article concerned.
However, perhaps I may continue to quote from this enlightening article which is obviously creating much interest. It continues:
" It would be left to each political party to determine whether and how much weight they would give in their political party broadcasts to the minority views within their own parties."
That is yet another attempt by the director of the European Movement, who represents no one or nothing but his
386
personal capacity, but in that capacity he is clearly suggesting that there should be a limitation to the official party points of view. This is another attempt to load the dice, based as it is on what I hope will be a mistaken assumption about the Labour Party— that each British party will campaign for a "Yes" vote.
It is important that broadcasting time should be allocated not to political parties but to pro-Market and anti-Market organisations. Plaid Cymru has had bitter experience of the carve up of time in relation to political broadcasts by the self-styled all-party committee. My party recently had to take on the broadcasting authorities in the High Court to get a broadcast out at the time scheduled. I do not consider the so-called all-party committee competent or fair to allocate the campaign time. I press the Government to set up a representative ad hoc committee of the campaigning groups and broadcasting authorities to supervise referendum broadcasts. Nothing is said in the White Paper on that matter, but I hope that something can be stated clearly upon it.
Finally, I turn briefly to the question, of the counting of the votes and the announcement of the result. I find what is not stated in paragraphs 18 to 23 more. interesting than the logic of a so-called "national count ". The United Kingdom, as we have heard, is the only European democracy which proposes to count referendum votes centrally. We have heard references to Denmark, Norway and Ireland, and even centralised France which declares results by départment.
Only the United Kingdom Government have developed the perverted logic that because it is a United Kingdom poll, the constituency is the whole of the United Kingdom. I do not accept the analogy of the Lord President when talking of the whole of the United Kingdom as a constituency. The White Paper says that to announce the result in this way will secure its widest acceptance by the British people. I again quote the director of the European Movement, in his personal capacity:
"Such a procedure would avoid placing an onus upon most individual Members of Parliament to abide by their own constituency result."
I find this view a negation of representative Government. Most of us, as Members of Parliament, spend most of

387
our time trying to find out what our constituents are thinking on a broad range of issues, and yet on a major issue of this kind the Government are deliberately trying to prevent those views from becoming known. If the Government are so keen to get pro-Market Labour Members off the hook, if that is their intention, what is wrong with a county count? Or does the acceptance of the British people imply that the views of the individual constituent countries of the union should not be known?
Does the argument run like this? It the vote were close, as it was in Norway where there was a relatively small "No" majority, would the South-East of England be up in arms because Scotland, Wales and Northern England had saved them from themselves and kept them out of the Common Market? We in Wales have had to put up with Tory Governments inflicted upon us against out political views by the South-East for many years. To go through the mammoth, marathon exercise of a United Kingdom count in an effort:to mask genuine social and political differences between various regions and countries cannot be justified on the standard of argument that we have heard so far from the Leader of the House.
It is a matter of sadness that the right hon. Gentleman, in his other capacity, is responsible for devolution. If it is that kind of commitment that we have from the Government for devolution, if the deliberate masking of the views of Scotland, Wales and the English regions is to be carried out by the same Minister, I have the gravest doubts about the Government's real commitment to devolution.
Devolution is not an issue, it is a dimension of policy. If on major policy issues of this kind we are not to have real devolution and real representation of the views in Scotland and Wales, and the regions of England, the whole exercise must be severely in doubt. If it were done on a localised count and a United Kingdom tally we would have the results by midday the following day. Instead of that, we are to go through the charade of transporting ballot boxes through the night, no doubt in Securicor vans. I expect that they will be watched over by Alsatian guard dogs. They will be
388
transported to an unknown destination in central London where for five days and five nights 5,000 counters and scrutineers will be engaged in the count.
Mr. Lee: What about the recount?
Mr. Thomas: If there is a recount, it will be 10 days and 10 nights. Clearly, the referendum will have to be held on Monday so that nobody will have to be paid overtime. At the end of the five days there will be puffs of white smoke, unless we have a recount. However, we shall still know the Welsh result because the ballot papers from Wales will be bilingual. Our independent scrutineers will be able to tally them. If we do not have official results from constituencies and from the regions, and from Wales and Scotland, there will be unofficial results and alternative forms of referenda by canvassing or putting in tellers. Let the Government come clean.
I suppose that I am arguing against myself in that I want to see this great centralised count take place as the last great absurdity of the over-centralisation of United Kingdom Government. Perhaps I should be urging the Government to carry on with their plans.
Finally, the Referendum Bill must be shown to be a substantial improvement on the White Paper. It must contain safeguards on the major issues that I have tried to indicate before we as a party can commit our support to it. Although we believe in the principle of the referendum, unless the referendum secures a clear statement on the views of the people of Wales we shall not be able to support it.
8.58 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Brown: I do not wish to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas). His remarks about Southern England always organising things for him did not ring a bell with me. We in London have been carrying a lot of the burden for a very long time.
Having heard most of the contributions in this debate, I am bound to say that I am not persuaded one bit that the Government's decision to go ahead with this referendum device will add to our parliamentary system or will be of any great value to the British people. It is

389
true that the word "referendum" never passed officially from Labour Party spokesmen until 23rd January. Even the Queen's Speech did not contain the word "referendum ". It was only as recently as 23rd January that the word "referendum" was used as a commitment for the Labour Party.
Like many of my hon. Friends, I made a commitment in October that if such a pledge were made in our manifesto we should proceed by way of the ballot box. I assumed that we were pledged to a General Election. That is what we always understood the use of the ballot box to mean in this country. I used that term then and I use it today. If we want to know the views of the people we should have a General Election so that we can hear what they have to say.
It is extremely dangerous to try to transplant or superimpose on one's own system a more attractive feature from someone else's system. My mind goes back to the Industrial Relations Act. I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) talking in those days about the absurdity of taking certain things from other people's ideas. The Industrial Relations Act was exactly the sort of thing in which various persons compiled what they regarded as attractive items from various systems into one measure, and it turned out to be a disaster. If, with the referendum, we try to weld to our parliamentary system ideas based on an entirely different philosophy, we shall end in complete disaster.
My argument is reinforced by Annex B of the White Paper, in which the Government have picked out various countries that use a form of referendum. As has been pointed out, these countries have written constitutions and have accepted referenda as part of those constitutions. With them it is an on-going process, not an isolated use of the system, to be disposed of after being used once. The people of those countries understand referenda to be part of their systems. It is therefore irrelevant to quote the practice of these other countries in support of the use of a referendum in Britain. In Australia, for example, people are compelled to vote, and that makes comparison very difficult.
I believe that Annex B shows just how fundamental is the difference between the
390
White Paper proposals for Britain and the practice in foreign countries. The Government are not proposing to retain the referendum for any further use after this issue has been decided. I am interested to know why. If it is a valuable device, surely it should be retained. I am open to being persuaded that it is valuable, and I do not understand how the Government, having decided that they want to use it once, should then want to get rid of it as fast as possible. The Government, as I understand it, are saying that they want to hear the voice of the people and they want to be bound by that voice. If that is so, why not use this machinery for other issues? The public have many ideas about which issues are important, and it is something of an intellectual arrogance to say that we in Parliament should decide that there is only one subject on which we want to hear people's views and be bound by them, and that this situation should not apply to other matters that they, the people. regard as of paramount importance.
Tortuous arguments have been adduced in favour of limiting consultation to this one issue, and that issue has been chosen by the Government. The people outside Parliament, however, have issues that they regard as important, and they have been demanding referenda for years. They have as much right to have their favourite issues put to a referendum as has anybody else. It is an odd form of democracy that dismisses the views of large sections of the population who wish to test opinions on subjects they regard as of paramount importance but which insists that they should answer only the question that we think should be put to them.
Paragraph 26 of the White Paper presents an interesting situation. First, the Government will issue, along with all the other advertising material for Omo, and so forth, a "pop" version of the document. In addition, they will issue an explanatory memorandum to describe how the "pop" version of the document is to be read. Having done that, they will send out another document of 4,000 words—2,000 from one side and 2,000 from the other. Then there will be some questions, and two sets of answers. The people will then have to sit down and study all the paper work.
Mr. Jay: That is exactly what is done in elections.
Mr. Brown: I am glad that my right hon. Friend intervened. I have here an article written by him which will illustrate how difficult it is to interpret what is written. Under the headline "Common Market: Why should we come out, by the right hon. Douglas Jay M.P." is written:
" It is now clear that no substantial concessions are going to be made by the Common Market countries in the ' renegotiation ' which the Labour Government has rightly launched.".
I suppose one could call that an extension of the truth, but I would call it an utter untruth. It has no relevance to the facts. Yet that article has gone out under the name of my right hon. Friend. People are reading it and saying that it is written by the right hon. Douglas Jay, not by Mr. Douglas Jay, that friendly man— and they believe that what he says is right. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister comes back from Dublin he will tell us what he thinks about it. I do not believe that he will come back with that story. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend hopes, by writing another article, to give an informed version of what he did not know before. Perhaps that is one way of making a living.
I shall quote one more piece from my right hon. Friend. He said that
" The only tolerable solution for Britain and the Labour movement now is to return to sanity and rejoin the EFTA group of Social Democratic countries."
I looked to see what Governments were in power in the EFTA countries. In Portugal there is an armed forces Government of the Left in a state of flux. The troops have been out tonight. In Switzerland there is a four-party coalition, including Radical Democrats, Christian Democrats, the Swiss People's Party and Social Democrats. Finland is an associate member and it has a Government consisting of four political parties. Of the seven EFTA nations there are three with Social Democratic Governments.
My right hon. Friend wrote something that is patently not true. There is not a Social Democratic EFTA, and there never has been. I am not taking issue with my right hon. Friend on it. He is entitled to write what he likes. All I am saying is
392
how difficult it is for someone reading all the papers to try to decide what is fact and what is fiction. I am not challenging my right hon. Friend's right to print what he likes, but it is difficult for people to understand the written word in these terms. I should like to be satisfied that the voters will be able to clarify their minds on these issues.
We shall have to undergo this procedure in a hurry. Everything will be rushed. From the time that the Prime Minister arrives home from the summit everything will go into top gear. People will have to clear their minds by June, and then they will have to take a decision. It is almost impossible to expect those people to take such a momentous decision within such a short space of time. I appreciate that in the time scale that is set the decision must be taken quickly, but one cannot set up an Aunty Sally just to knock it down.
I do not believe that the people of Great Britain are being given a fair chance even if they are in favour of the system. It would have been better if we could have taken the decision in a much more leasurely fashion, so that people could have arrived at an understanding of the issues.
Much fun has been made about the idea of an information centre, but no alternative was advanced by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas). Many hon. Gentleman have jeered at the idea, but nobody has come up with any other suggestion. We should be told what is the right way to inform the population within so short a time.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: I proposed a subvention from public funds, so that information could be distributed by the parties, whether pro or anti, indirectly rather than directly from a Government agency.
Mr. Brown: But how are people to assess the information which will come to them within so short a space of time? They have only until June.
I find it impossible to accept the arguments for attaching a referendum system to our parliamentary system. If we want to discover what people are thinking, we should go through the time-honoured procedure of going to the people via a General Election and letting the people have their say. We must consider whether

393
this new concept within the system of government will be to the nation's benefit. I have come to the conclusion that if we agree to the referendum proposal it will not add much to our democracy.
9.13 p.m.
Mr. Paul Channon: I am sure that many hon. Members will agree with the conclusion reached by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown). Many hon. Members, particularly Labour Members, have obviously concluded that at present it is wrong to hold a referendum. I am against a referendum in principle, and I am against a referendum on this particular issue. It is possible to run a democracy and also to have a system of referenda — examples have been given in the White Paper— but we do not have such a system in this country.
I agree with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) that once we have gone down the referenda road it will not be the end of the idea. It will have a profound effect on our system of parliamentary government. Are we saying that there are some issues so important that even when Parliament has decided by a majority to support that issue, nevertheless Parliament cannot be trusted to come to the right decision? If that is what we are saying, it is the greatest breach of the traditions and practices in the House of Commons— far greater than the issue of the Common Market.
I also object to the view that it is important that we should have a referendum on this special issue. There have been other crucial issues on which the House has decided in this century. We decided to go into the last war. That was an issue of life and death for this country. No one could have said that it was not as crucial as the Common Market issue.
Mr. David Lambie:There should have been a referendum then.
Mr. Channon: One can imagine how we should have been stifled by inability to come to a decision. It would have been a ridiculous situation.
What will be the practical result of the referendum? Will it be binding? The Leader of the House says, rightly in law,
394
that it is not binding, but he says on behalf of the Government that they will accept the result of the referendum. If the decision is made by one vote, it will bind their future conduct.
What are individual hon. Members expected to do? I believe that it is crucial to this country to remain a member of the European Communities, though other views are passionately and sincerely held in the House. Is it seriously suggested that, against all my convictions and all that I have argued in favour of membership at General Election after General Election ever since I have been a Member, I should solemnly vote to take us out after the referendum? The proposition is ridiculous.
Hon. Members are asked to surrender what has been our prime responsibility and duty, which is to vote for what we believe is in the interests of the country.
Dr. M. S. Miller: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and to many other hon. Members making this point. Is he suggesting that our system is perfect, and that we cannot have any other form of attempting to get the people to express their democratic voice?
Mr. Channon: Every system can be improved, but I still believe that compared with the parliamentary and other systems in other countries ours is the best available. I do not wish to tinker with it in a way that I believe will be damaging to our parliamentary democracy.
I come to the second main point, raised by the hon. Member for Fife, Central, and, I think, by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), of the Government's position when the referendum is over. If they recommend that we should stay in the Common Market and that recommendation is overturned in a referendum, how can anyone believe that it would be credible for them to remain in office? How could it be, when the main plank of their foreign policy, on which a great deal of their economic policy will depend, has been taken away? They would then have to introduce crucial legislation which they had said they did not believe in. That would be a constitutional outrage, and there is a danger of its happening.

395
Secondly, even if the Government resigned, what is the alternative? My right hon. Friends are also pledged to stay in the Common Market. Therefore, we should have the situation described by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), a few years ago, of having irresponsible government. No major political party would be able to form the Government and carry out the policies which it genuinely believed to be in the national interest.
I am violently opposed to the referendum on those grounds, and on the grounds of collective responsibility. On an issue of crucial importance to the country it cannot be right for Ministers, whichever party is in power, to have to parade their differences, for them genuinely to disagree, with half campaigning for one side and half campaigning for the other. That is the negation of the Cabinet system of government which we have had for a considerable time, and it is a damaging precedent.
Apart from dealing with those major constitutional matters, I have three things to say on minor issues. The more I have listened to the debate, the more I have become convinced that hon. Members will be rushing to take part in the campaign. The Leader of the House asked for views, and I give him my view that the House has a duty to have a Recess, so that we may take an active part in the campaign, for whichever side we wish.
My second point concerns holiday makers, those who are abroad, those who could not have known when the registers were compiled last October that there might be a referendum the following June. I ask the Minister to bear in mind that many people will be disfranchised. The Leader of the House said that in June not many people would be on holiday. But my experience in my own constituency in the June 1970 General Election was that very large numbers of people felt very aggrieved about their inability to vote. They were not confined to my own political party. They existed in large numbers. If this is such a unique occasion, the Government have a duty to enfranchise such people for this purpose.
I come, then, to the last of my minor but reasonably important points. I take
396
the view that if we are to have a referendum it is right to have a national count in the way that the Government have outlined. I should not wish that to go by default and for the Government to feel that only those against the idea had taken part in this debate. If we have a referendum for the United Kingdom, we have a United Kingdom count. If we have a referendum for Northern Ireland, we have a Northern Ireland count. If a referendum is held in Wales about Welsh Sunday opening county by county, there is a county count. It seems to me that the analogy is exact.
Those are peripheral matters. The crucial issue which this House will be asked when the Bill comes before it is whether we are to throw away that in which we all believe, which is the idea of a responsible House of Commons deciding on the evidence before it whether to agree to certain legislative or other action in the interests of the country. If that principle is to be breached, this will not be the last occasion. We have heard Scottish and Welsh Members say that it should apply to devolution. Other hon. Members have said that the principle should be extended further. If that happens, the unique forum which this House has been for a great many years will have been thrown away for no substantial gain.
Therefore, I hope that when we come to the Second Reading of the Bill we shall decide to reject the referendum proposal. I believe that if we do that it will be in the interests of the House of Commons.
9.22 p.m.
Mr. David Lambie: Unlike the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Chanson). I am in favour of a referendum. I am not so arrogant as to think that the collective wisdom of the 635 Members of this House is of greater value than the collective wisdom of the electorate. Anyone who believes in democracy at the end of the day must believe that the collective voice of the people is of greater value than that of the 635 Members of this House.
I was not sent here as a Labour Member representing a Scottish constituency to protect the traditions and practices of this House. I have no great love for the traditions and practices of this House.

397
As one who believes passionately in devolution and, further, in self-government for Scotland and Wales, I am here to support the break-up of the traditions and practices of this House. In a future debate, I hope that we shall see the Scots and Welsh people— and, for that matter, anyone living in one of the English regions who wants self-government and more power going to the regions — achieving self government.
I listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown).
I support the hon. Lady's argument that it is a mockery of democracy to have a central count. Those who are against referenda and afraid of democracy are the same people who are in favour of a central count. That is why I was disappointed to hear my right hon. Friend the Lord President say that the only reason for the central count was his wish to unite the country. I put it to him that in Scotland he will cause disunity, especially amongst Labour voters, if he persists with his central count.
Mr. David Walder: If the hon. Gentleman is in favour of a referendum and a national count, why does he wish to relate the results of that to constituencies which, as I understand his argument, are irrelevant.
Mr. Lambie: Because I believe in the general democratic principle that the more one devolves the system of government or the system of election the better the result and the more interest there is in it.
A fortnight ago, my constituency Labour Party took a decision with which I wholeheartedly agree. We shall campaign as a constituency Labour Party to try to get Britain out of the EEC. If we want a high poll, and I am sure we do, we must involve local interests, and we shall do that only if we run the campaign locally.
It is nonsense to bring every ballot paper from Scotland to some central point in London and do the count over five days, with perhaps 5,000 or 55,000 counters. I do not know the exact figure, but we shall
398
have to put up with all these people being at Earls Court for five days counting the votes of the people of Scotland, among others. This is nonsense, and it is nonsense to try to carry it out on the principle that we want to unite the people of this country.
Mr. Gerry Fowler: If I may take up my hon. Friend's local interest point, can he explain how it is that we always get very much lower polls at district and county elections than at General Elections? Surely at the former the local interest must be at its highest.
Mr. Lambie: My hon. Friend should compare the London constituency results at the last General Election with the local government constituency results in Scotland at the recent election. He will find that there was a greater interest in the local Scottish election, as shown by the percentage poll, than there was in the London constituencies at the General Election, when certain important Members were elected with less than 50 per cent. of the people voting. I hope that my hon. Friend will not put that argument forward as a reason against decentralising the vote.
The people of Scotland know how they will vote. They will vote against remaining in the EEC. There is no doubt about that. The Glasgow Herald is carrying out a series of polls. Every poll is conducted by independent investigators, and they show clearly that the Scottish people, by an overwhelming majority, are voting against entry. I put it to the Government that they will put Labour Members of Parliament at a disadvantage in Scotland if they persist with this central poll. This is being done not in the interests of efficiency or on the issue of democracy, but because the Government are afraid to learn how the people of Scotland and England vote. If they persist in this, they will create problems for Labour Members from Scottish constituencies.
I now propose to deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central. I fought the last election on the basis of the Labour Party manifesto which stated clearly that we were in favour of consulting the people either by way of a General Election or by way of a referendum. I put it to the

399
Government that Willie Hamilton standing as Willie Hamilton for Fife, Central would get 10 votes, but Willie Hamilton standing as the Labour candidate for Fife, Central would win.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. The hon. Member will be naming me next.
Mr. Lambie: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thought that my method of referring to the hon. Member in that impersonal way was allowed. If it is not, I withdraw what I said. I say to my hon. Friends that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), standing as Willie Hamilton, would get 10 votes, but the hon. Member for Fife, Central standing as Willie Hamilton the Labour candidate in a Left-wing, almost Communist, constituency would win.
The TUC, the Labour Party annual conference and the manifesto of the Labour Party on which we fought the last election stated clearly that we would consult the people on this issue either by way of a General Election or a referendum. I put it to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we are putting in difficulties Labour Members who fought the election on our party manifesto and who are prepared to stand by that manifesto.
We fought the election on this issue and we should stand by it. We are not arguing about the pros and cons of entry or withdrawal. We are arguing the principle of whether we should consult the people of this country. I know where I am going. As the Labour Member of Parliament for Central Ayrshire, I am campaigning locally for a "No" vote. At the end of the campaign I shall want to know whether I have been successful, how the people of Central Ayrshire, the people of Scotland and the people of the United Kingdom voted. Unlike most hon. Members, I am not afraid of democracy and I am prepared to stand by the majority opinion of the people I represent.
9.32 p.m.
Mr. John Davies: I, too, would be fascinated to hear how the electors of Central Ayrshire voted, but I shall not follow the hon. Member's argument.
400
I should like to return to the central question of the advisability and appropriateness of referring this obviously vital matter to the British people in a referendum. Although hon. Members may not be totally satisfied with it I have a good word to say for the referendum. If, as I suspect may be the truth, it is a way of resolving, relatively quickly, the issues surrounding British membership of the Community, let us have it quickly— and affirmatively. I shall greatly welcome an abandonment of the humiliating role which this country has played in its external relations in the past 12 months.
From any reasonable European standpoint Britain is seen as a petulant and petty-minded Kingdom, rigorously seeking some narrow interests of its own without regard to wider considerations. I find that distressing beyond words and I should like to see us absolved from it.
Two years ago, when we became a member of the Community, there was a great feeling of relief and satisfaction among the eight other Members— a feeling that Britain was a country with great traditions, with a great belief in democracy and a country able to contribute something vital and necessary, perhaps hitherto absent, to the whole formulation of the Community. When it came to the question of how best to deal with the election of a proper Parliament in Europe. Britain was expected to contribute something substantial.
Mr. Russell Kerr: When was this?
Mr. Davies: As recently as two years ago. Look where we are now. At that time in many areas which were considered to be of vital importance to the future of Europe and its ability to play an effective part in the world we were seen as the people bringing new thought, a new line and a new dimension to the whole concept of European unity. We have sadly abandoned that. If a referendum is necessary to reinstate us to a position where we can once again take up our proper position in these matters a referendum there must be— but with the greatest regret.
For all I have said, I cannot vote for this referendum on any score. It seems objectionable from the point of view of its constitutional content, in terms of it

401
ability to pose a valid question with clarity and in terms of the complexity of the issues surrounding the answering of any valid question. Last, but not least, it seems objectionable because it is an unworthy thing for this House to have on the whole, agreed that it should refer back to the people the question of the negation and renunciation of a treaty into which we entered as recently as two-and-a-half years ago. On all these scores, I feel deeply resentful of the thought that it should necessarily be by this means that we return to a rightful stance within the European Community and are able to make our proper contribution to it.
I do not have a great deal to say about the constitutional issues, which have been dealt with most effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) in an admirable speech. I look back with some personal satisfaction to the fact that my maiden speech in this House was on the subject of the validity of a referendum for determining our membership of the Community. I am glad to say that I at least can claim some consistency. I have not changed my stance one iota.
I felt only satisfaction at being able to add my name to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who had signed the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. James) dealing with the extension of the referendum principle to include whether people thought that Parliament should decide. I still think that that is a valid question which should be answered. I have little doubt, on the constitutional issue, that what we are at present conniving at is wrong.
It is certainly one of the most complex issues, in any reasonable sense, to understand the full spectrum of the Community in all its activities. I imagine that other hon. Members must have been approached as I have, by hundreds of constituents from every walk of life saying, "We are faced with an impossible dilemma. We do not understand what we are being asked to make a decision on." The fact that we as a House should be prepared to do that, knowing the immense difficulties we are casting on our constituents, is unworthy of us.
The hon. Member for Belper (Mr. Mac-Farquhar) made a most interesting speech.
402
If the question of the direct election to a European Parliament were an issue to be put to the people now, it would be more suitable, although I am against referenda, as an issue for a referendum than the complex and widespread question concerning the Community as a whole. It would be possible to frame a question which people could answer with clarity, understanding what they were doing. This is an enormous, juggernaut problem, quite incapable of being appraised in 2,000 or 20,000 words— even if anyone reads them.
Mr. MacFarquhar: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I accept the point that the question of direct elections to a European Parliament would be a more suitable subject for a referendum. However, my feeling is that when that stage is reached the process will already be irreversible.
Mr. Davies: We do retain the absolute right to say "Yes" or "No" to what we wish in the Community and we must continue to exercise that right.
An interesting point raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) illustrated exactly the kind of difficulty facing us in terms of clarity. He was niggling about whether we are talking of a European Community or European Communities. Is it not appropriate to ask whether we would wish to remain a member of the European Coal and Steel Community but not of the European Economic Community? That poses real problems. There are many sound arguments, if we are to go into that niggling area of discussion on detail, on positive and separate questions. The framing of a question with clarity is itself of immense difficulty, as we have seen today, not least because the very thing of which we are speaking is unclear to those to whom we are addressing our question.
Parliament, with all its sovereignty and with the support which the British method of government gives it, has reached a conclusion embodied in a treaty with many other countries. How bad a moment it is when Parliament regards it as necessary to throw back that right to the people. How great a doubt it must pose in the minds of so many other people. Can anybody doubt that the Atlantic Alliance is

403
a matter of the most fundamental importance to us? How great a risk is there that this, too, might in its turn be thrown into the jaws of a referendum.
Mr. Lee: The right hon. Gentleman quotes the Atlantic Alliance. Is it not a fact that one can give six months' notice and leave that organisation? That distinguishes it from the Common Market, for the ultimate article in the treaty, if it is read in its literal sense, states that we can never leave it.
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is making my point for me. It is Parliament that should decide. It should not be decided by a reference back without any concern for Parliament's view. I consider that on all counts we are tonight unfortunately likely to reach a conclusion on a proposal which is essentially unworthy of us, which is unjustified and which is done for petty and mean reasons which I deplore. I am prepared regretfully to see it happen because it is only by that means that we can reach a conclusion.
9.42 p.m.
Mr. Alf Bates: I welcome the Government's decision to hold a referendum as outlined in the White Paper. My constituents will welcome this decision as an election pledge which is now being fulfilled.
I accept what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). Our manifesto said that we would consult the British people through the ballot box, and throughout the last General Election campaign I said that of the options open through the ballot box, I thought the referendum was by far the wisest course.
The situation that we are facing is quite different from any other decision which we have to take, as was very well outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar). People delegate to Parliament power over all matter, but, having done so it is surely right that over one matter Parliament should not have supreme power, and that is the matter of giving away a power which has been delegated to it. For that reason I consider that we are in an entirely unique position.
However, I do not want to deal with many of the constitutional matters. I
404
want to speak almost entirely about the nature of the count and the way in which the result is to be declared. I start from the premise that the purpose of holding a referendum is to ensure that the will of the people is carried out in the end by Parliament. There are many ways in which the referendum count could take place and the result could be declared. Some of them are outlined in the White Paper. There could be a count on a constituency basis, on a county basis, or on a regional basis, or in many other ways. Whether in the end we come out of the Common Market or stay in, we shall do so as one nation. We shall not come out on a regional basis. We shall not come out on a constituency basis.
That leads me to support the conclusion that the Government come to and the arrangements for a single national count. We have to ask ourselves: what is the purpose of, for example, a regional count? Why should we declare a result on a regional basis? Would it help Parliament to carry through the will of the people, as I initially described? I think not. If we believe that it is our duty simply to carry through the will of the people as nationally expressed, I do not see how a separate count could possibly help. Alternatively, is it an attempt to use the referendum for entirely different purposes, namely, promoting false nationalism, as many of us suspect?
People say that there will be opinion polls, anyway. I thought that in these days nobody took much notice of opinion polls. A declaration of those results in that way would only make official, even if the polls were accurate, what is a myth. Regional counts cannot add anything to our knowledge or to the way in which we conduct our business after the count has taken place.
Let us examine a few possibilities, because there are a number of inherent dangers. Let us suppose that the nation as a whole voted to stay in. Let us suppose that England voted to stay in while Scotland and Wales voted to come out. It is perfectly possible that could happen.
Mr. Lambie: What is wrong with that?
Mr. Bates: There is nothing especially wrong about it. I want to ask the House what it would do afterwards. Would

405
Scottish Members believe, on that basis, that Scotland should leave the Common Market whilst England remained in? Is that really a viable proposition? I have not heard anybody suggest that, and I have heard members of the Scottish National Party suggest that they could not possibly do it.
Mr. Percy Grieve: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the possibility that, although it is not a viable proposition, there are still a great number of people who would be foolish enough to believe it?
Mr. Bates: I am sure that people will believe it, but whether they do or do not and whether or not it is declared in that way, we all know that as a whole we should stay in, because such is the nature of this place and the nature of people's feelings in this case.
I am drawn to the conclusion that the desire of, for example, the Scottish National Party to have the vote counted on this basis is simply a desire to be able to say, in those circumstances, "It was the English who kept you in against your will ", knowing very well that that is the only possible outcome. In other words, it is simply a desire to use the referendum for the entirely different purpose of promoting nationalism.
Let us suppose that we have a situation in which the overall result was that we should come out— that England voted to stay in whilst Scotland and Wales voted to come out. What would be the position of English Labour Members? In those circumstances, would they feel bound by the English result, or would they be bound by the national result?
It is important to remember that, in the main, the Tories will in any event vote to stay in. It is strongly possible that there would be a sufficient number of English Labour Members who would accept the English vote rather than the overall national vote and who would vote with the Tories and keep the whole nation in the Common Market against the national will. If that happened, where would be the confidence of the people in this place after this very massive and very pointless exercise?
There are eight possible combinations if Scotland and Wales are considered separately. I shall not bore the House
406
with any more of them. Only two of them would produce a unifying and, therefore, satisfactory result. The rest would be unnecessarily divisive, because we all know that the only result to be carried into practice is the overall national one and that there is, therefore, only one way in which the result should be declared— that is, singly and nationally.
There is the possibility of declaring the result on a constituency basis. Many of my hon. Friends who are opposed to our staying in the Common Market favour a constituency-type count. They should think seriously about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) said that he supported the Labour Party's manifesto but his constituency party had decided to campaign against. I am not sure what that means.
I ask any members of my party who seriously wish Britain to come out of the Common Market, and have made up their minds on that basis, to think about the suggestion that there should be a constituency count. There is only one way in which Britain will leave the Common Market, and that is if the Labour Party remains united. We must remain united on a single agreement. Some of my hon. Friends may not want that, but I want it. I want the Labour Party to remain united on a single agreement that after the referendum we shall vote in favour of what the referendum says.
Mr. Russell Kerr: My hon. Friend is asking for the moon.
Mr. Bates: If my hon. Friend wishes, as I believe he does, to get Britain out of the Common Market, he should join me in at least striving for the somewhat distant objective of which I have spoken. I shall not be put off by the fact that some members of my party may attempt to split it. I start from the premise that there is only one way to get Britain out of the Common Market, and that is to unite the Labour Party over the single objective of agreeing to abide by the result of the referendum.
Mr. Stan Thorne: Does my hon. Friend recall that it was 69 members of the Labour Party who split it when they voted for Britain's entry into the Common Market?
Mr. Bates: I recall that. It is one strong reason why I advocate what I am now advocating. The only way to ensure that the vast majority of members of the Labour Party vote according to the result of the referendum is by our having a single national count.
If the Tory Party, as I believe, votes in the main, after the result, to stay in the Common Market, and if we have a constituency count, there will be a sufficient number of Members on this side who will find constituency excuses to vote with the Tories. Such constituency excuses will not be present if there is a single national count. That is why I want a single national count.
It would be fine if every Member voted as his constituency voted, but hon. Members will not do that. For one thing, the Tories will not do that. The only way to carry through a decision to leave the Common Market is for the Labour Party to agree to abide by a single national result.
Mr. A. P. Costain: If the Prime Minister recommends this country to stay in the Common Market, will the hon. Gentleman feel no obligation to support him?
Mr. Bates: I am talking of the posisition after the referendum has taken place. I want to ensure that this House abides by the national decision.
Mr. D. E. Thomas Mr. D. E. Thomas rose—
Mr. Bates: I had better not give way. It would not be so bad if the Tories would abide by the referendum result, but they will not. They will use the referendum. They will campaign in the referendum process and seek to influence people, but they will not abide by the result. For that reason, those who will abide by the result of the referendum must act as one and, after the result, must have the one clear objective of putting into effect the declared wish of the people. Otherwise, the whole exercise is pointless and, indeed, harmful. In my view, many of the dangers inherent in this exercise are best eliminated by the arrangement that the Government have proposed.
9.57 p.m.
Mr. Julian Critchley: If life is one humiliation after another, this debate and the referendum will be a humiliation for the House of Commons.
408
The referendum is a device that can only accelerate the decline in the standing and influence of Members of Parliament and of the House of Commons. The question, "Explain the decline in the influence and standing of the MP ", was in the O-level papers last year. I think that all of us could attempt an answer. It begins by starting to draw attention to the increase in the power of the executive extracted from the legislature. The second part is to look at the Civil Service, the bureaucracy, and the power that has arisen there. The third part is to look outside the House of Commons at all the new institutions that have arisen— the CBI, the TUC, the BBC and the IBA. While this has been going on Members of Parliament have been left underpaid, underfed and, rumour has it, undersexed.
Mr. Lambie: The hon. Gentleman should speak for himself.
Mr. Critchley: And, if this referendum has its way, utterly unimportant to boot.
Some hon. Members have suggested that there should be a recess for the duration of the referendum campaign so that we might electioneer. Yet this would be an election in which we, as Members of Parliament, had no more standing or status than any other elector. Frankly, we would do far better to stay behind and let the people get on with it.
The referendum smacks of an odious cynicism. It is an attempt to try to keep one of our institutions— the Labour Party— more or less intact at the price of seriously weakening a second institution— this House itself. We cannot begin to understand or discuss the referendum without understanding and motive that lies behind its advocacy, and its motive has been explained by more than one hon. Member from all parts of the House today. Be under no illusion. Were the answer to the referendum to be "Yes" in June, the "antis" in the Labour Party, to say nothing of the "antis" elsewhere, would not cease from strife, and that would not be the end of that particular great debate. It might have been more sensible—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this Day's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock and that the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill [Lords], the Supply Powers Bill [Lords] and the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour—[Mr. Coleman.]

EEC MEMBERSHIP (REFERENDUM)
Question again proposed.
Mr. Critchley: It might have been wiser had the present Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson), in 1972 faced the problem there and then rather than postpone it, because I think the effect upon the Labour Party of the referendum campaign itself may well be disastrous, and the only people, quite naturally, who can gain from that are my hon. Friends.
The renegotiation exercise itself has done this country and Europe an injury. We have subjected our friends to an exercise in persuasion against their will,
410
extracting from them marginal concessions at a high price of their good will. The whole process of renegotiation has been a distraction which has consumed our time and theirs at a time of immense crises, both externally and within this country.
How ironic it is, faced with a failing sense of security, the risk of international economic co-operation failing, the effect of OPEC and the energy crisis upon Europe and upon European-American relations, a threatened and actual failure of leadership among the nations of the Western world, the threat to the southern flank of NATO and an increasingly active Soviet diplomacy, that Europe and ourselves have wasted our time and energy on an obvious manoeuvre designed to hide the rift within the Labour Party itself. That is the division between the neutralists and the National Socialists, on the one hand, and the Social Democrats upon the other.
If renegotiation is an injury, the referendum itself is an insult. It is an insult to this House, to every Member of the House, to the history of the House and to all that it stands for. As an institution, the House is under attack. This is a sad day indeed. I shall most certainly vote against a referendum.
10.3 p.m.
Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I shall take up some of the points made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) shortly. I should like to begin by looking at the reasons the Government gave in the White Paper and in the speech of the Lord President for introducing this proposal which is totally unprecedented in the history of this country. There is one throw-away line in the preface of the White Paper which says that this is a unique issue and that it is the unique nature of the issue which necessitates the referendum. I think that this matter has been dealt with, but let us be clear.
In the last 400 years of its history this House has not only exercised sovereignty but has given away sovereignty— not just on the Common Market issue, which is arguable, but when it conceded independence to the Republic of Ireland. This House acquired sovereignty over an Empire of 600 million people, and then gave away that sovereignty country by country. I think that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) would agree with me that it was an historic act when Parliament gave away sovereignty over the 400 million people of the Indian Empire. These things were done— war, peace, and the creation and ending of an Empire— by debate and decision in this House of Commons. This, therefore, is the history of the matter. So one cannot argue that membership of the European Community is in any sense a unique occasion which merits unique treatment.
I turn to the other reasons given by the Lord President. He said that the previous Conservative Government had no mandate for entry. We often toss across the Floor of the House the question who has and who has not got a mandate. But it has never been part of the constitutional procedure of this country to suggest that a Government cannot meet the exigencies of the day without a precise commitment in their previous election manifesto. Indeed, most of the important things that Governments do are not the implementation of specific pledges which they have put to the public and on which they have obtained a specific endorsement but are reactions to new situations. But let us
412
be clear, there was no mandate on the part of the Macmillan Government to apply for entry in the early 1960s. There was no mandate for the Labour Government to apply to enter in 1967. But surely it is clear that when one Government of one party and then the next Government of another party both apply unsuccessfully to join the European Community, it cannot come as a total shock to the British electorate if, at a subsequent election, another Government, the third in succession, repeats what has been a consistent activity and attempt to enter the European Community. I cannot see that the argument that there was no mandate for entry can apply in this case.
Mr. English Mr. English rose—
Mr. Mackintosh: Then there was the suggestion by the Lord President and others that the EEC Bill was steamrollered through the House. During its passage there was some steamrollering on the Government side, but do not let anyone imagine that there was no steamrollering on the Opposition side. We started with a majority of 112. That was composed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) has said, of 69 of my hon. Friends voting in favour and 20 abstentions. The steamroller was then introduced on the Labour side.
No one can imagine that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Office did not want to vote in favour of British membership throughout the entire Bill. Do not let anyone imagine that those of us who voted for the principle would not, had we not been pressurised, have voted regularly for the Bill. I admit that to my shame many of us followed the Whip against our convictions. To my knowledge, there was no one in the majority of 112 who changed his mind by the end of the debate although the Bill finally had a majority of only 8. If there was any oddity about the passage of the Bill it was not that there was steamrollering on one side but that there was steamrollering on both sides. Had there not been that pressure on the Opposition side on pro-European Members, there might have been more relaxation on the Government side.

413
So let us not pretend that there was anything very peculiar about the passage of the Bill. The only thing I can detect that is particular or new about the situation is that it is the first time that this country has solemnly proposed to tear up a treaty agreed to and entered into by the Government and endorsed by the House. The shock that this has administered to Britain's friends in other parts of the world is phenomenal and disastrous. We have deluded ourselves by talking about this matter as a "renegotiation "; we must remind ourselves that in reality it is a tearing up of an agreement that was reached by the Government of this country.
Mr. Winifred Ewing Mr. Winifred Ewing rose—
Mr. Mackintosh: The only serious special reason that has been put forward for bringing in a referendum on this question does not lie in the nature of the issue or in the nature of the problem but in the difficulties faced by the Labour Party in handling the issue within itself. I agree that there is some importance in keeping parties united. We all know the benefit of the two party system. The House does not work adequately without a party system with which to inspire it and to keep it going. That position is perfectly clear. But to inflict this particular issue on Parliament as a remedy for a party division is entirely monstrous. When the idea was first proposed by the Prime Minister, I said that it was a sad day for the history of the House when a Prime Minister should declare that the House was fundamentally incompetent to take a major decision involving the future of Britain. My right hon. Friend rose and said that he had said no such thing, but in fact that is precisely what is being said.
I wish that the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) were present. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there was to be a vote on principle on the Floor of the House before the referendum. We have been told that there will be a vote on principle. That cannot be stopped. It will be an unwhipped vote on the Floor of the House on whether the House recommends that the British people should remain in the Community. By any calculation the majority will be larger than
414
112— namely, the number of Members who voted in favour in October 1971.
The real nature of the disaster we are encountering is that, having observed that with a Conservative Government in power, there was a majority of 112 for entry, and then when a Labour Government was in power, we shall probably have a larger majority, despite these majorities by which the House of Commons recommended entry, the Government then say to the British people, "We consider that all this is not sufficient. It is not an adequate indication of the interests of this country."
The fundamental assumption behind the referendum is that this House does not adequately represent the feelings of this country. That is the proposition being put forward. I appreciate that many people have said, and it is an obvious point— it does not matter which way the result of the referendum goes— that if we drive home the point that a consistent majority of this House, one Government with another, does not represent the feelings of the people in this country, we are inviting referenda on other subjects. Much worse, however, every time either major party passes a contentious Bill, some newspaper will Commission a Gallup poll and will say that there is no majority support. And of course the House of Commons has admitted that a big majority in the House does not mean that a measure has the consent of the people. It may happen on a labour relations Bill, a nationalisation proposal by the Labour Party, or on a devolution proposal. One very important and tendentious issue which we pass there will be a Gallup poll among the public and it will be said that we do not represent the feelings of the country, that the House had admitted it and that the newspaper has a poll to prove it. And if there is no majority on a head count, there is an assumption that people need not obey such dubious laws.
Another terrible thing is that the referendum will perpetuate a confusion between Government by debate, thought, reflection and decision in this House with a head count. That is where I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), and I apologise for having earlier interrupted him from a seated position. He said that

415
for him democracy meant majorities. 'This country has never believed that. There has not been a majority on a head count basis for many of the greatest reforms that this House has been proud to pass. The best case for these reforms lay in the considered judgment of those elected to serve the constituencies of this country. I say to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing)— and I appreciate her arguments— that even her case would stand a better chance of being seriously considered under the majority opinion of the Members of this House rather than by submission to a head count with all the difficulties of whom to poll and how to phrase the question.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Does the hon. Member not admit that this is an unlikely possibility? We would have to expect the English Members not only to be reasonable, as they are, but to be ultrareasonable if they are seriously to support the case for self-government for Scotland. We hope that they will, but there are only 71 Scottish Members out of 635, and that is a problem when one is in a common market.
Mr. Mackintosh: This House has conceded independence not only to the Republic of Ireland but to 34 other nations on the view of this House as to what is just and fair. That is a better result than could have been achieved on a head count, even if one could have solved the question of which heads were to be counted and on what question.
I wish finally to deal with a point which was raised by various hon. Members, and it concerns the practice in other countries. I wish to support the argument advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) that there is no other country that operates a representative system of democracy through an elected House like ours that has found this method adequate or appropriate for reaching decisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) referred to New Zealand. In fact, New Zealand has put only matters such as the licensing hours, betting laws, conscription and special issues of that kind to such a test. The New Zealand people have never
416
been invited to overturn a decision of their Parliament. Decisions on certain limited issues have been handed out to the people as they have been here on a veto poll, but the people have never been invited to reverse parliamentary decisions on major matters of national policy.
Perhaps I may point to the disaster which occurred in Norway— [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh about that, but I am not referring to the outcome of the vote but to the effect it had on the constitutional life of the country when the governing party was split and destroyed and when it became impossible to carry on the government. We are faced here with an identical proposal. We are told that if the government are defeated in their recommendation to the public they will still carry on governing. Does that mean that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary would pursue a policy in serious dealings with other countries which they had earlier said was inadvisable? That would be utterly irresponsible in the technical sense of the word because they would be carrying on a policy for which not they but the referendum device was responsible. In the next election if the public said "What a ghastly mess" the Government would say "It is not our fault. We carried out a policy in which we did not believe." Is that the way to conduct the government of the country?
My time is running out but there are many other arguments I could put forward on this disastrous proposal. I argue not from a pro- or anti-Common Market angle. This proposal for a referendum is as likely to do damage to proposals for Left-wing reform or any other policy that may be brought before the House. On a head count, a majority would not have been obtained for many of the great reforms with which the Labour Party has been associated. I am not opposed to referenda because of the special issue of the Market. I am confident that the pro-Marketeers will win, but I should vote against the referendum even if I knew that they would win. The referendum is a bad thing. I have heard pro-Marketeers say, "Do not fight it, because we shall win." The hon. Memfor Newport (Mr. Hughes) said that this was a victory for the anti-Marketeers. I do not care for whom it is a victory.

417
It is a defeat for the parliamentary system of government and that is why I cannot vote for it.
10.16 p.m.
Miss Janet Fookes: It is an agreeable surprise to learn how many members of the Labour Party are opposed to a referendum, as I am. I should not regard it as unconstitutional in the sense that I presume that Parliament has the right to make these arrangements and carry them through if it so wishes, but I believe that it is wholly wrong and misguided.
There might have been an argument for a referendum before we entered the Common Market, but we have now entered it, we have signed the treaty, and we should not tear up the treaty that we signed so recently. I heard from behind me on this subject a muttered remark to the effect that we have torn up treaties before, but its having been done before does not make it right to do it again. I recall that it was because one power treated as a scrap of paper the neutrality of Belgium guaranteed by a treaty that we had war in Europe.
I turn to the question of parliamentary sovereignty. Perhaps I may put it in more personal terms. I do not know the various reasons why hon. Members seek to come to the House, although there always seems to be an almighty scramble to get here. It is not for the money we are paid or for our splendid working conditions. It is because we hope to have a share in the destiny of our country by exercising our judgment, and I guard that privilege very jealously. I hope that the people trust us to make those judgments on their behalf, as they always have the right to throw us out in a general election— as a know to my cost.
There are many people in my constituency who are bewildered by the issues and would prefer the guidance of Parliament. That has not been sufficiently stressed in the debate. During the last election a woman came up to me and said "I do not understand what all this is about. Why cannot Parliament decide?" I am sure there are many people who share that view.
It is true that the people have to make up their minds about the issues in a General Election, but I suspect that by the
418
time they have been bombarded by all the various arguments they are confused about that also. Indeed, on the doorsteps many people said to me "First we listen to one side and it seems convincing, then we listen to the other and that seems equally convincing. In the end we are more confused than we were when we began." I suspect that the same will occur on this issue, which is much more complex than are many of the issues that have to be decided in a General Election. Worse still, we are faced with a raging inflation with all manner of problems. Yet here we are spending time, money and effort on this referendum when I believe the real issues are elsewhere. We should be getting on with those issues.
I turn to the White Paper and the details of the referendum there set out. On the assumption that the Bill will receive a Second Reading, I suggest some possible improvements in the measure. The wording on the ballot paper has already been discussed at length, but I share the view of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton)— and it came as a surprise and a shock to me that I hold a view in common with the hon. Gentleman. I believe that it would be right for additional wording to appear on the ballot paper so that if people so wish they can leave it to Parliament to decide. I see no reason why this should not be done technically if the will is there for it to be done.
Mr. John Ovenden: Taking up that suggestion, how would the hon. Lady interpret a vote by the British people in which 40 per cent. of the votes were cast against continued membership, 35 per cent. for continued British membership, and the remainder said that the matter should be left to British Members of Parliament? How would she interpret such a result?
Miss Fookes: Obviously we should have to have a totally different way of evaluating the situation. It could not be done on a simple majority, as has been suggested. I feel that the matter is so complicated that people should have an alternative if they so wish.
This brings me to a point with which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House did not deal adequately. It

419
arises from paragraph 8 of the White Paper.
" The Government are concerned that the size of the poll should be adequate, and they are confident that it will be so."
I do not know on what they base that confidence. Perhaps we could be told in the Government's reply.
Mr. Cyril Smith: I should like to make a comment on the size of the poll. I am in favour of the referendum, but is the hon. Lady aware that it is proposed that the poll should be held in the annual holidays of certain constituencies, and that my constituency is included in them? How will that lead to a high poll?
Miss Fookes: That is a matter for the Government to answer since it is their idea. The paragraph continues:
"They also consider it to be of great importance that the verdict of the poll should be clear and conclusive."
But they do not suggest how this can be brought about, nor do they suggest what should be done if the answer is not clear and conclusive. We have the right to ask the Government what they would do in those circumstances. I foresee all sorts of difficulties following a low poll and an inconclusive result. I suspect that the matter would have to come back to the House for a decision and the whole exercise would be a complete waste of time.
I turn to the point about a central count. I cannot say that I am deeply moved one way or the other on the question but, on balance, there may be an advantage in carrying out the count at constituency level. I believe that there are administrative difficulties in trying to arrange the count centrally. We have a well-proven legal system that we know works pretty well. I cannot imagine what the position would be if a recount were required. I have experienced six recounts in one small constituency. I shudder to think what a recount would be like over 635 constituencies.
We must not overlook the difficulties in transporting the ballot boxes. I shall not attempt to emulate the description given by the hon. Lady the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) and her highly-coloured account of what might happen to the ballot boxes on the way to Earls Court. But I was sufficiently
420
intimidated by the prospect of her in her fur hat mounting guard over the ballot boxes to feel that it would be as well if we kept to the old method.
More seriously, if people will try to find out the results on a constituency, regional or national basis, as they have threatened, there is merit in having the figures available. Otherwise, there will be endless speculation, and all kinds of possibly inaccurate figures will be given. For that reason alone it would be as well to arrange the referendum on the old basis.
The real snag is that the referendum has not been undertaken for the right reasons. The hon. Member for Fife, Central vividly stated the position when he said that it was to cover up the difficulties in which the Government find themselves because they are deeply split on the matter. I do not believe that good comes out of actions undertaken for completely wrong reasons. The Government, and probably we, may well live to rue the day when the referendum was agreed upon.
10.26 p.m.
Mr. Max Madden: The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), in a most perceptive speech, said that we were all here today because of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he? "] It is a great pity that he has not shaken the Spanish sand from his shoes to be with us. If he had been here, he would have joined those who opposed the referendum.
It would do us all good to dwell on the speech made by the hon. Member for Antrim, South. He rightly said that we are discussing a referendum because the handling of the issue by the Conservative Government resulted in a fester which has remained in the hearts and minds of the majority of the British people. All fair-minded and reasonable people, all people with an affection for parliamentary democracy, will agree with me that the way in which we were herded into the Common Market was a parliamentary travesty. It was done by a series of derisory votes on legislation which was an abomination, considering that it was on a momentous issue, legislation which reached the House in 12

421
clauses and which was run through the House under the guillotine. It was in ail respects a parliamentary travesty.
For that reason, Parliament lost its reputation and the regard which many people had for it. It was the victim of manipulation by the Conservative Government, led by people who were and still are Euro-fanatics. They wanted this country in the Common Market at almost any price. We must face that issue today, and in doing so we must overcome the objections which many of us have to a referendum.
The White Paper presents a first historic step in the honouring of the commitment which the Labour Government gave to the people at the last election that they would allow the people to decide this great issue.
If this referendum is to settle the matter finally and satisfactorily, as the parliamentary decision should have done before but did not because of the way in which it was handled, as the White Paper says it must be manifestly fair, it must be efficient and the outcome must be clear and conclusive. I am sure that those are the objectives of all of us who support the referendum.
Many of my hon. Friends have aired some of the shortcomings of the White Paper. Unfortunately, as it stands, the objectives are not likely to be achieved. I confine my criticisms to three matters— the question, the issue of Government information, and the arrangement for both sides to put their respective cases.
The White Paper says that the form of the question should be as free from bias as possible. The Government make it clear in the White Paper that they are not yet committed to any form of words. We have been told many times that the referendum should resemble a General Election as far as possible. If that is the design, why, then, is a preamble necessary? There is no similar preamble on a ballot form at a General Election. The Government do not say why they the holding an election and for what purpose. Therefore, I cannot see any genuine need for this preamble to appear on the ballot form in the referendum.
I come next to the wording of the question. If we are to fulfil the objective of fairness, we should avoid any suspicion that the question is trying to lead people
422
to certain conclusions. We are told by various experts in the ballot firms that in any campaign the form of the question is irrelevant. But I question that view, and I question the desirability of doing anything likely significantly to affect the outcome of the referendum. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) said, we must remember that anything which significantly can influence the outcome must be avoided at all costs. Even the most marginal influence could have an effect on the outcome. Therefore, there is an excellent case for the Government reconsidering the question and deciding to do away with the preamble.
The point has been made that again, in trying to get fairness and a conclusive outcome, we must all support the inclusion of the words "Common Market" in the question. That is the name that the people know. Many have learned to hate it—
Mr. William Hamilton: That is why my hon. Friend wants it in.
Mr. Madden: Let us use terms which people recognise. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), that this time we must make sure that the matter is concluded satisfactorily. We must do nothing which afterwards can be held up to question or suspicion. My hon. Friend has an interest this time in ensuring that that is done. If, for a second time, this House goes along a road which is paved with suspicion, Parliament will do itself great damage. We must all have regard to that.
I come to my second criticism, which concerns the issue of Government information. We are told in the White Paper that a massive Government information campaign would be inappropriate. But we see in the White Paper that the Government propose to issue a popular version of the renegotiated terms on a door-to-door basis. That is an unprecedented activity by a Government. It conflicts with criticisms made from the Labour benches when the last Conservative Government proposed to make publications available in Post Offices. We must look carefully at this proposal.
At a time when there is to be freedom from collective responsibility and when the majority and the minority are to be

423
allowed freely to express their views, it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that if the majority view is distributed on a door-to-door basis, the document should also carry the minority view. If the document is to be a balanced one which will help people come to a conclusion, that is the only course which can be supported.
Then I want to comment on the questions. Many of us are extremely concerned about the idea of a certain number of questions being put and answered by the respective umbrella groups. Who is to decide the questions? Who is to frame the questions? This again can lead to consequences and views which would be highly dangerous.
There is great concern about the setting up of special information units to provide, to use the phrase in the White Paper,
" interpretation of the renegotiated terms and the like ".
I believe that this would be an extremely dangerous and ill-advised course of action for the Government to take. They have a number of highly skilled and proficient information officers serving in the different information offices who have specialist knowledge of the activities of their departments. They know how the renegotiated terms will affect their Departments and their policies, and it would be wrong to superimpose upon these Departments special information units which many of us suspect will be manned by people without this special knowledge of the individual Department.
I warn the House that if we have one special unit in London the media will request regional information units because, they will say, it is impossible to get through on the telephone to the one here. We shall face the prospect of a whole series of special information units giving their interpretation of the renegotiated terms and the like to the media all over the country.
It is necessary to limit advertising both in the newspapers and on the hoardings, because, as we have heard, the money in this game is loaded in favour of a particular view. We should always beware of that. It is wrong to disregard this aspect of the matter. It would be easy to impose limits in this field.
424
I think that the White Paper is very sanguine about the media in this referendum campaign and in the debate that will lead up to it, which is an important period. We have seen that a disproportionate opportunity is provided by the media to those who favour our staying in the Common Market. How shall we deal with the situation that will arise when the "For" and "Against" cases are to be given on the media? The Government themselves will be asking for time to substantiate their recommendation. Will the Leader of the main Opposition party ask for equal time to reply? Will the Leader of the Liberal Party then also ask for equal time to reply? In those circumstances, the whole argument will be loaded in favour of the pro-Market movement.
This is a momentous issue. It cuts across all the major political parties. It will be irreversible, for if we stay in much longer it will be impossible for the United Kingdom to disentangle itself. This issue must be decided by the people. On this issue, and this issue alone. I favour a referendum because it will fulfil our election promise. This is the only way in which to resolve this long and unhappy episode in our history.
10.39 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I hope that the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) will not misunderstand if I say that his speech is living evidence that those who are fanatically anti-Europe are misanthropic and negative, whereas those in favour of staying in the Community remain optimistic, humanitarian, loving and deeply compassionate.
I should be tempted, if it merited it, to dwell for longer on the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I prefer to home in with some degree of admiration on the speeches of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and his hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). It is a pity that other Members have not the courage that has been manifested by those two hon. Members in this great debate on this momentous issue to speak out as they did on what this is all about.
It would be wrong and a gross understatement to describe the speech of the Leader of the House when he outlined the Government's plans for this charade,

425
this pantomime, and this farce as other than a grotesque parody of what the House of Commons stands for and what his duties are to the whole House of Commons and not just to his own side and his own benches.
The arguments have been dealt with more than adequately. Nevertheless, there are one or two points which need to be repeated for the consumption of Labour Members and one or two of my hon. Friends. The people of this country see a Government who are dragging the country down in economic and social terms. They see a country which a couple of years ago signed a solemn treaty, backed by an overwhelming majority in this House—
Mr. Powell: Eight!
Mr. Dykes: — now seeking to overturn it. Never before have treaties been torn up so quickly after their promulgation. None the less, the Government persist in this curious charade, on this problematical exercise which will fatally weaken this House, our constitutional procedures and our basic principles.
Even more important, it will serve to undermine the morale of the people yet further. The hon. Member for Sowerby spoke of how crucial and special it was for the people to have a choice on this occasion. We must bear in mind the historical precedents for the skilful, devious and almost criminal use of referenda by people in non-democratic systems for their own purposes. We must remember that classical definition of the highly effective dictator with the toothbrush moustache who ruled over a nation not far from here. He defined the inner worth of a referendum as that of being able to secure the population bending to his single will.
If that were so, and I am not drawing any analogies about the personalities involved on the Government side, it would be an argument in favour— putting it at its most cynical— of having a resounding, almost scientifically measured "Yes" in favour of our remaining within the Community.
The most irresponsible act of all of this Government— and that is saying something— is that they know not what turn out will result. There is likely to be
426
some kind of problematical result with a low turnout and perhaps a marginal difference between the "Yes" and "No" vote. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, three weeks ago, that even if there were a resounding "Yes" the argument would remain unresolved. The whole thing will go on. The referendum is not, per se. a clinching, definitive and final way of getting the issue out of the way. That is why I indict the Government for irresponsibility, for doing that for which the people will not forgive them. They are putting the Labour Party's fragile and ridiculous unity before the basic interests of the nation.
This is being done at a time when our partners in Europe are not merely beginning to pity us for what we are under this regime but are beginning to ask themselves when Britain will have the chance to pull out of this madness. The House should totally reject this chicanery and deviousness on the part of the Leader of the House and his colleagues, above all of the Prime Minister who has so grievously misled not only those at the Summit in Dublin which has just concluded but all his colleagues and the whole British people.
10.45 p.m.
Mr. John Roper: I do not wish to continue the constitutional arguments in what will have to be a brief intervention. Instead I will deal with one point concerning the green edges to this White Paper. I am a reluctant supporter of the referendum, a reluctant convert. I find it a most undesirable political innovation. I have come to accept it not because it will preserve party unity. I believe it is an innovation which will put considerable strain on the Government and on the party. I have come to accept it for reasons which are not dissimilar from those of the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies).
The present nature of our membership of the European Community is totally unsatisfactory. The continued member. ship of a grumbling Britain is a serious brake on the development of the European Community. We must clarify the position of our membership one way or another, so that the Community is not continually held back by a member who is still uncertain whether he will continue in membership. The decision should

427
be made quickly, and I therefore reluctantly accept that the decision should be made by a referendum.
I am, however, concerned by the structure which is being forced on those who will be campaigning, by the strait jacket which I suggest the White Paper is beginning to impose. My right hon. Friend the Lord President, in his opening speech, talked about two umbrella organisations. He also used the words "the two sides" as if there were two sides in a General Election campaign. This is not the case. My reasons for wishing to see continued British membership are quite different from those of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who seems to be one of the most eccentric spokesmen whom the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition could have appointed to speak on this subject.
Similarly my hon. Friends who take a different view from mine do so because they are honestly convinced that we shall more easily achieve the objects of a more prosperous Britain and a more socially just Britain outside the Community than inside. I do not doubt their motives. They clearly have quite different motives from those of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), or of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), or of the Scottish National Party or the National Front.
I respect my hon. Friends' opinions. I know they have honest motives. But I am depressed at the way in which, by the White Paper, they are to be forced to agree with this very motley crew, with 2,000 words on why they think we should come out, and then apparently have to find agreed answers to a number of questions. They will at least have the consolation of knowing that those who think as I do will have to find an agreed text with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds if this strait jacket is maintained. We should all be able to campaign freely and to state our opinions, and I hope there will be arrangements, for example for a free post. But I hope we shall not be forced into a strait jacket of two sides.
I hope that the proposal in paragraph 30, the so-called Australian solution, will
428
be dropped. It is called the Australian solution because it is the method used in Australian referenda. I hope it will be dropped because the situation in this country is quite different from that in Australia where referenda take place on matters in which there is a clear difference across the Floor of the Australian Parliament between the parties. The two sets of arguments are drawn up by a majority of the supporters on one side and a majority of the supporters on the other side of the House. The division is clear along party lines in the Australian context. It is not clear in the context of the United Kingdom.
I believe that the imposition of the Australian system on the United Kingdom in paragraph 30 of my right hon. Friend's White Paper will put quite unnecessary strains on our political system in the months which lie ahead. On that particular green edge I hope that my right hon. Friends will think again and will see whether we can find a more satisfactory method before we reach the referendum in June.
10.50 p.m.
Mr. David Walder: Every speech I have heard in the debate so far has convinced me of the difficulties inherent in trying to combine our accepted system of parliamentary democracy and the running of a referendum. In a sense I am rather sorry for the Government. I am certainly sorry for some Ministers.
It is interesting to think of the origin of this referendum. There were a number of people who were opposed to the Common Market some time back and who thought that, if there were a referendum, the people of Britain would vote against the Common Market. The idea grew. It became a popular cry in the ranks of the Labour Party when Labour was in opposition. It sounded good— "We should take the opinion of the people."
Since those days, when the leaders of the three main political parties were all in favour of entry into the Common Market, many people— I do not wish to mention any names— have come a long way. The Government are now in the position that I am in on a Saturday morning with my dog. I feed my dog regularly, but on Saturday it gets a bone. I know— I do not know whether my dog

429
knows— that its normal meals are of more value than the bone, but having given it a rather valueless bone it is very difficult to get it away from it. That is the position of Ministers now. They are stuck with the idea of having a referendum.
We all know now the results of the negotiations which have taken place at Dublin. They convince me of how wise I was when I said a long time ago, before our entry into the Common Market— it was printed in the Sunday Times by way of criticism— "Let us get into the organisation first and negotiate afterwards." That is precisely what the Prime Minister has been doing, although I am sure that what he has been doing will be represented to us all as a great triumph.
Anyhow, the referendum if it takes place will mean that we abdicate our responsibility in the House. There is a more important point than that. I will not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) and accept the total decline of Members of Parliament which he particularised in a rather embarrassing way. I will merely say that it is an attempt by the Government to abdicate their responsibility.
No longer can we have that situation which we all know about at election meetings when people say to candidates "Your party did such-and-such. Your Government did such-and-such and we hold you to account." Now if that is said to a member of the Labour Party who is in office he can say Of course not. We did not make the decision. You did. We threw the issue out to the people." This is a reversal of the burden of government. It is dangerous. It is also an attempt to abdicate responsibility.
I am not very concerned about the details of the referendum because, as the House will have gathered, I regard the whole referendum as something of a sham. It is a bogus exercise. I am not very concerned about how it is carried out.
I am not in favour of a constituency count, for the very obvious reason that, even though Members of the House were to vote according to constituency results, there could be a majority of the country voting in the opposite direction.
Those who argue in favour of the referendum as the improved system by which one takes the voice of the people
430
and then say that it should be brought down to constituency level seem to me to be embarking on a course of extreme illogicality.
I fear that the House will allow the referendum to go forward. I hope that it will not. I shall certainly vote against it. If the House does allow it, very well; let the bandwagon go on; let us have the national count at Earls Court or perhaps at the Albert Hall and then the great result will be announced, whether by the Prime Minister or by some borrowed star of stage, screen or contemporary television I know not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) was worried about the interpretation of the vote and the result of the referendum. I can reassure her. She has no need to worry, because we all know what the present Prime Minister wants to do and what he intends to do, and I am sure that we can leave the interpretation of the result of the referendum to him, too.
10.55 p.m.
Mr. Bryan Gould: As one who believes that there is a respectible— indeed, a powerful— case for the referendum on this issue, I congratulate the Government on their White Paper. I believe that many people in this country will see it as a means of fulfilling not only this Government's election pledge, but the dishonoured pledge of the former Conservative Government.
In the few minutes available to me, I should like to try to deal with the argument that there is some special constitutional difficulty in the way of holding a referendum in this country. No one disputes that our entry into the Common Market means a fundamental change in the way that we govern ourselves and a fundamental redefinition of our legislature.
Countries with written constitutions are able to bring about a change of that kind by following the prescribed procedures. Those procedures often involve a two-thirds majority or a referendum.
We have an unwritten constitution, so it is not possible to follow prescribed procedures. Nevertheless we have a constitution. We have rules which define this Parliament, which govern our functions as Members and so on. Those rules,

431
logically, take priority over the institution of this Parliament and Government. They rest, therefore not on the will of this Parliament but on the political realities which underlie it. It follows that this Parliament alone cannot be sure that it has the competence to change those rules, because it is a creature of them.
We can be sure of changing the rules only if we can see that the political realities have changed. In a democracy, how better to discover that than to ask the people. That is the powerful and, indeed, positive case for a referendum on this issue.
In the two or three minutes remaining I should like to try to deal with one or two of the major points of detail that arise on the White Paper. I am worried about the pieces of paper which will come to people through the free post. I have no quarrel with the document which will set out the case for either side, but I am concerned about the abridged version of the White Paper. That seems to be open to objection on a number of grounds. First, it reinforces a regrettable precedent, established by the previous Government, of using taxpayers' money to promote a particular political and partisan cause, notwithstanding that it happens not to coincide with the divisions of party politics.
Secondly, it ensures that the voters in the referendum will be guaranteed to receive an imbalance of material, whichever way the White Paper comes down, which will support one side rather than the other. It is one thing for the voters to seek out such information for themselves, but quite another for there to be certainty that they will be biased and unfairly informed in that way.
Thirdly, there seems to be revealed a misunderstanding or at least a confusion, about the rôle of the Government in this matter. The Government in this context could simply mean the executive agency which is responsible for organising the vote. But it also means a partisan majority of the Cabinet on this issue. I do not believe that the Government have thought through this ambiguity. I suggest that they should look at it again.
On the wording of the question, the argument is that the words "stay in "
432
must remain because they reflect the fact that this country is already a member of the Common Market. But that is a non sequitur best illustrated if we imagine that we had a vote before joining the Common Market. Is it seriously argued that the question then would have been, "Should we stay out of the Common Market? "because that reflected the status quo? Of course not. The question would have been, "Should we join the Common Market? ". The change would have been proposed in that question. The pro-Marketeers cannot have it both ways. I favour a question which specifically offers the two choices— stay in or come out.
I trust the good faith of the Government in this matter, but I believe that they should pay particular attention to the points that I have made.
I do not believe that anyone wants a cry of "Foul" once the decision of the people has been given on this matter. Therefore, I believe that the Government are to be congratulated on their White Paper and on fulfilling yet another election pledge.
11.0 p.m.
Mr. John Peyton: I am always very sorry for anyone who finds himself obliged to squeeze what would have been an excellent speech into a few minutes, and I must tell the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) that he was rash in the repository he chose for his trust.
I am sorry that today we have not heard more of those people who make a habit of detracting from the worth of Parliament, because we have had a remarkable debate. I hope that even Ministers who are very busy might find the time to read speeches which have been made from their own side of the House.
It was impossible not to feel a great deal of sympathy with the Leader of the House when he opened the debate. He had, after all, to present us with a fairly stodgy diet and he did his utmost to oblige the House and to give as much information as possible.
He referred to the fact that the White Paper had been described by the Prime Minister as having very green edges, but he did not do much to relieve our

433
anxieties about the colour of the middle and did not exactly carry us away when he made one or two interesting points about the argument they had plainly had about how the question should be formulated— the choice between "going in ", "being in ", or "staying in ". So far as the choice matters, the Government were probably marginally right to choose "staying in ".
We probably all applauded the right hon. Gentleman's determination to avoid over-burdening the ballot paper, but one point I would like to make is about the question of voting by people who work overseas, particularly in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman got into one of those slight confusions to which we are all subject, when he said that, of course, if they applied for postal votes they could have them. For people who are overseas, the proxy vote is the appropriate one. I hope that he will look hard at this serious point.
It is worthy of mention that, showing rather more than his master's candour he used the words: "We do not wish it "— that is the referendum— "to be used for their own purposes by those who wish to divide the United Kingdom." He went on to say," We are not concerned with what Northern Ireland thinks," in words hardly felicitous for the occasion.
He told us that the Government had done a feasibility study. I hope that before long we shall be let into a knowledge of some of the conclusions reached in that study because this operation means more and more in its lack of realism, rather than the reverse.
He went on to refer to the extent to which bodies on each side can coalesce into what he unhappily called umbrella groupings. What part umbrella groupings can usefully play in this contest I do not know, but the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that they will write their own case. It seems an academic exercise, and how umbrella organisations can be drilled rapidly into that kind of disciplinary exercise I do not know.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in a very welcome first contribution in that rôle, received a well-earned tribute from the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), who said that her speech was very different
434
from that which had been made by the Leader of the House. That was a comment with which all of us of the Opposition were prepared warmly to agree. My right hon. Friend was quite clear about two particular points, and I should like to repeat them now. The first was that before we had ever advanced on such a device as a referendum there should have been far more mature consideration as to where it would lead and how it should be done. As the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) said, the conclusion we are now left with is that the Government are incapable of making a decision on this very important issue. As my right hon. Friend said, what it amounts to is that we are passing the buck to the people. That is a very shameful thing for the House of Commons to do.
In a most interesting intervention, the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, agreed with some vigour that he would be very ready to pick and choose fixed subjects for future referenda. This let the cat effectively out of the bag.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party— I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber at present— asked a most wounding question of the Government. Why, he asked, had they changed their view. He made things much worse by borrowing from the right hon. Lady who looks after prices her explanation, which was that the party simply could not have stood up to the pressures which would have resulted from inaction or the failure to find a device such as this. The right hon. Gentleman asked what was the test of uniqueness. We shall look forward very much to receiving from the Minister when he winds up an answer to that question.
It is fantastic that the Government should say, first, that this is a very important issue but then subsequently that it is not an issue on which they ought to be called upon to resign. If ever any Government yielded to the temptation and to the greed that they could both have their cake and eat it, the present Government have done it on this occasion.
The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes)— who is also not in the Chamber at present— is always one to lend himself to one or two flights of fancy. He

435
accused everyone of all kinds of arm twisting. He went so far as to suggest that industrial companies do not owe a duty to explain to their employees where, in their view, the interests of the company and, therefore, the prospects of employment lie. I hope that we shall not hear too much of that kind of argument. I mention it only in order to show what a dangerous and menacing thing it is to freedom of expression.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) asked the serious question: is this European issue unique and how can we possibly limit the use of this device to this particular issue? I warmly agreed with him when he said, first, that there is no evidence that our constituents are falling over themselves to take part in this exercise. I hope very much that he will receive some answer from the Government how they view the effect of the actions which we are now taking both upon other people outside this country and upon our own children and the future of us all.
The hon. Member for Blackley, to whom I have already referred, said in a bold and courageous speech that from his point of view it was better that we should put up with this device rather than turn our backs on Europe. At the end of his speech he called for a decision by the Cabinet saying that the referendum is destroying the principle of Cabinet responsibility. I hope that the Government will absorb that. I hope that they will realise that these attacks are not coming from my right hon. and hon. Friends but again and again from their own supporters.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West objected to paragraphs 31 and 33 of the White Paper— in other words, the rather strange provisions that are being made for the provision of an information centre and the loose and hopeful arrangements— they are very sloppy— for television and radio.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) raised an interesting question. He referred to the Prime Minister's statement of 23rd January in the White Paper, when he said that the Government will
" decide upon their own recommendation "
and announce it to the House. The Prime Minister said that that would provide
436
the opportunity for a debate of substance. My right hon. Friend asked whether the Government would ask the House to endorse their decision before setting in motion the referendum procedure. He pointed out rightly that if the Government did not do so they would be going over the head of Parliament.
My right hon. Friend was not present at the time, but he received a clear answer from the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). He told my right hon. Friend— I hope that he had the authority of the Government and I hope that the Minister will be in a position to confirm this— that there would be a debate before the referendum machinery was set in motion and that there would be a free vote in the House. That would be a very interesting matter to put to the nation.
Then we had a brave speech from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). He first made clear the extent to which those who had quarrelled with their party had been roughed up in the process. He described how they had had to win their way back to grace. He said that those who took us into Europe had explained their position and had taken a stand, and that the onus was now on those who wanted to take us out. He said:
" I cannot see how the Government can avoid resigning if the country goes against its recommendations or how any of its supporters can avoid seeing that its recommendations are supported. They will have to go out into the country and campaign for it. I suspect that many of us are only just facing up to the implications of the referendum and that the Cabinet realised them only a few weeks ago ".
I salute the hon. Gentleman for having had the courage to say those things. They deserve to be written large into the record of this debate.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) will excuse me if I say that I do not entirely agree with everything that he said. I am afraid that I missed his speech. I was especially interested in what he said about the need for some kind of commission to hear complaints during the conduct of this unprecedented operation.
Next, I turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). I am sorry that it seems necessary before saluting Labour hon. Members for their courage and other

437
qualities to give them due notice so as to attract them into the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman said that the House will never be the same again after the referendum. He suggested that it is being held for the sake of preserving unity. He said that it was a device to keep the party together. He regretted that the debate was taking place. He claimed that the referendum is a hotch-potch that has been flung at us by the Government. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) is present. In a similar speech he said that the referendum would be of no great service to the people. He added that the way to consult the people would be to have a General Election. The hon. Member said that the Government could hear the voice of the people in this way on other matters, that the people would soon be asking that we proceed with referenda on questions which they would propose, and that there would be no end to the process. He said that if we wanted to know what the people wanted we should find out in the time-honoured way and hold a General Election.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), in a very clear and able speech, said that it was crucial that in its own interests this country should remain a member of the Community. I warmly endorse his comment that it is a farce for Ministers to go campaigning in different directions. He advocated, and I support him, that we should have a recess to enable M.P.s to take part in the campaign. What a hollow mockery, what a farce it would be, if, in addition to having a stupid device that none of us really trusts, we were then to be locked up here looking after sonic of the Government's dreary legislation, unable to take part in the campaign and inhibited from participating in what the Government agree is a historic process.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) made a most interesting speech. He did not think much of this place. He wanted the breakers into the United Kingdom, and he was campaigning for a "No" vote. I dare say that he might be quite successful. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) gave a most qualified welcome— the chilliest welcome that anyone could
438
give—to this nasty device. He said that if it offered a quick solution to the problem, let us have it and get it over as quickly as possible and get away from the humiliating rôle this country has been forced to play over the last year or so. No doubt much to the comfort of those who were listening to him on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Bates) actually supported the party line. I think that no further comment is needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) rightly pointed out, as did other hon. Members, that this device will diminish the stature of the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian had no comfort whatever for his Ministers. Most of the important things that Governments do, he said, are not specifically authorised, and he referred to the pressures to which Labour Members were subjected when this issue had come before the House on a previous occasion. He asked the question that Ministers will eventually have to answer: how can Ministers carry out policies in which they do not believe? A Liberal hon. Member quoted the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 18th April as saying that it was alien to our parliamentary system to adopt this course. We were told that the 1967 White Paper had said that it would be for Parliament to decide. There was one question in the Election Forum of 28th May 1970 to which the right hon. Gentleman gave, unusually, a very clear answer.
The questioner asked:
"Is it correct to assume that if Mr. Wilson sees the polls are going against him, he will say at the last minute that he will allow a referendum on the Common Market? "
The Prime Minister said:
" The answer to that is no, I have given my answer many times. I do not change it because polls go either up or down. Heavens, when the polls have been 28 points against me it has not made any difference with going on with policies I knew to be unpopular."
That shows how little worth is to be attached to the solemn word of the Prime Minister given at a time when he was deliberately consulting the people in a General Election.
There are one or two points I should like to make myself about the referendum. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear ".] If that is the best that hon. Gentlemen can manage with all their skill and tactics, I

439
recognise just how deep an embarrassment they are in. One question to which I invite the Minister of State's attention is when and how the Government will make known their recommendation to the country. Will that statement accompany the statement of opposing views which is promised in paragraph 30 of the White Paper?
What of the poll? I refer back to the view of several hon. and right hon. Members that apparently in the Government's view neither the size of the poll nor the size of the majority is to matter. Should not the Government, even now, have further thoughts on that subject before it is too late?
Then there is the question of the electorate. Again I ask the Minister of State to answer clearly who will be entitled to proxy votes. Will those who are currently working in Europe, for instance, be disfranchised, or will they enjoy a right to participate? The Secretary of State for Trade seems to think that that is unimportant, and that the views of those people should be disregarded. If he thinks that, I hope that he will stand up and say so. I shall be delighted to give way.
The first time I can recall having seen in print a mention of the practice of issuing election addresses is in the White Paper. It is said that something analogous to an election address will be produced during the campaign. Who will write that address? Who will circulate it? To whom will it be addressed and who will write the addresses on the envelopes?
There is then the question of expenditure. We are told that there will be no limit. That is a sign of thoroughly sloppy thinking.
Mr. Gerry Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman's latest remarks are a sign of thoroughly sloppy reading. The White Paper makes clear, as did my right hon. Friend, that the Post Office is willing to co-operate and that there will be delivery to houses.
Mr. Peyton: It is news to me that the Post Office will be kindly writing the addresses on every envelope.
Mr. Fowler Mr. Fowler rose—
Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman will have time to answer when he makes his speech.
Two documents are promised. One is the statement which will be written by the umbrella organisations, accompanied or not by the Government's statement. The other is the document which is analogous to the election address. If the Minister will read his White Paper he will find references to those documents, and I hope that he will explain them. There is also the question of public funds. One wonders to whom these are to be made available and what safeguards there are to be.
To sum up, we regard the referendum as a dodge adopted by the Prime Minister against his own previously-expressed view. The House will recall his view that he thought it right for Parliament to take the decision. It was a dodge taken without too much regard either for the interests of Parliament or for the interests of our country. It was taken simply to get the Labour Party out of some wretched jam into which his own folly had plunged him.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) failed to mention the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing). Will he care to state the Conservative Party's policy on whether there should be a separate count for Scotland and Wales?
Mr. Peyton: I am currently dealing with the Government's policy.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Answer.
Mr. Peyton: Indeed, I mildly congratulate myself on having cut down my remarks by not referring at length to what the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) said. The course upon which the Government are now embarked is one to which they have given very little thought. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, what we have here is a new method of validating law.
The Government in their White Paper make no mention whatever of the fact that this country is a signatory to a solemn treaty obligation. Are we to learn

441
from that fact— indeed are others overseas to learn from it?— that the Government do not regard the treaty obligations as a serious matter? Are they now saying to the world, "This country will always be guided by its own short-term material interests "? If they are saying that, I recommend them to take the advice of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch— namely that the way to consult the people is to have a General Election and to get the verdict which they richly deserve.
11.29 p.m.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Gerald Fowler): The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has shown his usual determination never to let the blazing sun of his argument be clouded by wit or subtlety. He regaled us this evening with a catalogue of the other speeches made in this fascinating debate— except for the speech made by the hon. Lady the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) to which I shall allude later.
The right hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that if the Post Office delivers one document to each household, or two documents together, thus reducing the cost of delivery, there is no need for envelopes, and therefore it is unnecessary to address any envelopes.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me whether there would be proxy votes for those in Europe. The Government will seriously consider whether postal votes for those on holiday, and proxy votes for those abroad, can be arranged. But it would be a complex operation, and we should incur high cost in doing it.
Mr. Peyton: The Leader of the House said that if those abroad applied for postal votes they would have them.
Mr. Fowler: I did not hear my right hon. Friend say that. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are no postal votes for those abroad. Therefore, as I correctly said, we are considering whether proxy votes might be made available for those in Europe and elsewhere.
I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned with those in Europe specifically. What about those in other parts of the world, such as Hong Kong? Nor do I see why the right hon. Gentleman
442
is specifically concerned, as he appeared to be, with those who were abroad last 10th October and who are still abroad. He did not mention those who were abroad on that date and who have therefore not registered in this country, but have since returned. They are not entitled to a proxy vote, on present arrangements.
Mr. Grieve: Would it not be possible to arrange for Britons living abroad to vote at their nearest consulate, embassy or high commission?
Mr. Fowler: The Government are considering the matter, as I have said.
Mr. Cyril Smith Mr. Cyril Smith rose—
Mr. Fowler: I cannot spend all my time giving way, but, as this will clearly be a weighty intervention, I do so this once.
Mr. Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I shall be going into the Lobby to support the Government on this issue. I have been consistently in favour of a referendum on Europe since 1970. But I would point out that if the referendum is held in the week beginning 21st June certain constituencies, of which mine is one, will be on their annual wake's week holiday. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is in the same position. I urge the Government to reconsider the date of the referendum or to give our constituents the right to express an opinion on the matter through the postal vote.
Mr. Fowler: I have given an assurance on the matter. The hon. Gentleman is right. One or two Lancashire towns will be having their wake's week in the week beginning 21st June.
Mr. Smith: Disgraceful. I shall vote against the Government if they do not alter the arrangement.
Mr. Fowler: I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on her maiden speech in that capacity. I think that I am the first Minister to have a chance to do so. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that she graced the Dispatch Box in her new role. However, she showed signs of excessive legalism. Constitutional law is not susceptible to the laws governing natural science. It is not immutable. I thought that on occasions the right hon. Lady

443
erred in the direction of saying that we must never change anything, and that what was good enough for our fathers must be good enough for us.
The right hon. Lady also argued that the Government had no mandate for a referendum, on the ground that the Labour Party received 38 per cent. of the vote in the last election. But the Conservative Party, in the 1970 General Election, received 46 per cent. of the vote — still short of 50 per cent. What is the distinction between 38 per cent. and 46 per cent.— [Interruption.] Then apparently we have a new doctrine from the Opposition, namely, that somewhere between 46 per cent. and 38 per cent. there lies a line on one side of which the party has a mandate and on the other side of which it has not. That is nonsense. But what is clear is that in the past two General Elections, the Labour Party fought on the basis of putting this issue to the people, whereas in 1970 the Conservative Party fought the General Election on the basis of negotiating for entry to the Common Market— no more and no less.
The issue of the mandate is clear. We have a mandate. The Conservative Party did not have.
The Leader of the Opposition said that she did not like the phrase "full-hearted consent ". It was not the Labour Party which invented it. What is more, if it be argued that by that phrase the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) meant only Parliament, I should love the right hon. Lady to explain why it was that he said
" the full-hearted consent of the British Parliament and people."
The right hon. Lady argued that representative parliamentary government was incompatible with referenda. But surely she cannot have meant to suggest that Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway and a host of other Western countries did not have representative parliamentary democracies. Perhaps the closest example to our own system is that of New Zealand. What is most interesting about that is that each referendum is preceded by an enabling Act, just as this referendum will be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh)
444
said that referenda in New Zealand were used for trivial issues like conscription. Many of us would not regard that as a trivial issue. But we have to come to terms with the fact that each country makes its own destiny. If referenda are used in one representative parliamentary democracy for one set of purposes, that does not mean that they cannot be used in another for another set of purposes.
The right hon. Member for Finchley argued that the Government should resign if the result of the referendum did not accord with their recommendation. She and others quoted the Norwegian example. However, the situation that we are in is nothing like that which obtained in the referendum in Norway. We have said that we will be bound by the will of the people expressed in the referendum. That is why it is unnecessary, if the people do not accept our recommendation, for the Government to resign.
Mr. F. A. Burden: The hon. Gentleman made it clear that there might follow other occasions on which referenda would be used. Is he suggesting that on any occasion when the Labour Party is likely to be driven apart, that will be used as an opportunity to have a referendum, in order to try to solve the problem?
Mr. Fowler: No, Sir. That is exactly what I am not suggesting. The argument has been adduced by the right hon. Member for Finchley and others that the purpose of this referendum is primarily to conceal splits in the Labour Party. That view was not shared by all who spoke today from the Opposition benches. The right hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) gave rather a different explanation. He said that the fault, if fault it be, lay with the Conservative Party, first, for taking us into the EEC without the authority of the people and, secondly, for setting the precedent by having a border poll in Northern Ireland. We have heard no refutation of that by the Conservative Party.
The best answer was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar). As he said, the way in which this constitutional question differs from all others is that in practice, after we have been in the EEC for a number

445
of years, the process has become irreversible. We cannot as a Parliament concede powers, least of all those which are irreversible, without specific consultation with the people. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) argued that we have given away sovereignty to large parts of the world, and that is right, but we have not given away sovereignty over ourselves irreversibly without the specific consultation of the people which we are proposing, except in the 1972 European Communities Act.
Mr. Peter Blaker rose—
Mr. Fowler: I cannot spend the entire time allowed for my speech in giving way. I have been asked a number of questions.
Hon. Members: Give way
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister must be allowed to put the case.
Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) argued that this is nor. a unique constitutional issue and that the "secession of Scotland or of Wales would also be of great constitutional significance". I think the whole House agrees with that. I am not aware which party, except some hon. Gentleman behind the right hon. Gentleman, is proposing the secession of Scotland and Wales. If the right hon. Gentleman means devolution, that is not of the same significance as the issue of membership of the Common Market.
Mr. Thorpe: The hon. Gentleman did not listen carefully to what I said. No one suggests that anyone but the Nationalists are in favour of secession. I was saying that secession is just as important a constitutional issue as Europe. Are we to take it that the Labour Party is in favour of a referendum on Europe but not in favour of a referendum on secession? If that be the case, it shows how cynical they are.
Mr. Fowler: I was unaware that we had to date seriously considered the secession of Scotland and Wales. For once I am sure that I speak for both major parties when I say that we have no intention of doing so.
446
Perhaps I can turn to some of the other questions that I was asked. I deal first with a minor one. I was asked by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), whose speech, irrespective of one's own position on the basic issue, was excellent, whether there would be a referendum in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. The answer is that there is nothing to prevent them from holding their own referenda if they wish. There is no proposal that their votes should be aggregated with those of the United Kingdom, for constitutional reasons of which the hon. Gentleman will be aware.
Mr. Peter Rost Mr. Peter Rost (Derbyshire, South)rose—
Mr. Fowler: I cannot give way, because I have a number of questions to answer.
I was asked about the count and perhaps I ought to deal with that first, though it means taking things in reverse order. During my right hon. Friend's speech the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) shouted from a seated position "We bloody well should be concerned with what Wales, and so on, think ". Of course we are concerned with what Wales thinks, but why do we need to record the Welsh vote separately on what is essentially a United Kingdom issue? Our minds are not closed on how the count shall be conducted, whether nationally, on a constituency basis, on a district or county basis, or however it may be done, but I must make it clear that I share the view of many right hon. and hon. Members that this referendum should not be used for a covert purpose beyond that which is said to be its purpose.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned me and I am obliged to him. The reason why we believe that Wales and Scotland need this result at this time is that, by the Government's programme, we will have assemblies in Scotland and Wales within the next two to three years which may well have a direct relationship with the EEC in a manner similar to the relationship which Bavaria and other constituent parts of Europe have with the EEC. In that event the opinion of the people of Scotland and Wales will be of vital importance to those in Brussels and

447
Strasbourg. That is why we believe the referendum should take place in this way.
Mr. Fowler: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets the idea that people in Scotland and Wales will have direct relationships with Brussels in the way in which other assemblies do. I do not know to which other assemblies he is referring.
The Scottish National Party suggested that the whole argument was in favour of a constituency count. Here, at last, I refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn. This is a national decision, to be taken by a national constituency. We do not want a back-door decision on other issues to be taken through the referendum as a result of a count in Scotland or Wales or on a constituency or county basis. Our minds are not closed on this issue and we are prepared to consider the points put to us.
I hope I have made clear that there are sound reasons why we should count nationally. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Bates) pointed out, quite rightly, we stay in or come out on a national basis.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing Mrs. Winifred Ewing rose—
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Lady spoke in the debate. She has had her crack of the whip.
Mr. Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Chief Whip of the Scottish National Party I resent that remark.
Mr. Fowler: Before leaving the subject of Scotland may I refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie). He said that opinion polls showed that Scotland would clearly vote "No ". Hon. Members will be interested in yesterday's Glasgow Herald which revealed that the gap between the voting intentions of the people in Scotland had narrowed in one month from 16 per cent. to 9 per cent. If I were my hon. Friend I would not be so confident that I would necessarily be on the winning side.
I turn to the Government's recommendation and the White Paper. The White Paper will be published as soon as possible. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion asked me whether the
448
House would be given an opportunity to express a view on the White Paper before the referendum was held. The answer is "Yes ". I must reject the right hon. Member's view that the Government would be appealing over the head of Parliament were that not to be so. It is not for me to say whether there will be a free vote following that debate.
Mr. Amery: Can the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the debate will be on a Government motion asking us to approve the Government recommendation?
Mr. Fowler: I can give no indication of the procedure that will be adopted. The House has a way of making its views known, whatever the procedure. Tonight's vote will be on the motion for the Adjournment.
I turn now to the Government information centre. I listened carefully to the objections to this and I give an undertaking that we shall carefully consider them before making up our minds. I must point out that there has to be some means of answering purely factual questions, not least about the referendum.
As for the idea of a popular White Paper, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) opposes the notion of a popular White Paper. It is only a popular version of a White Paper, and White Papers are very familiar animals in politics. Sometimes they are published whole in the newspapers. There seems, therefore, no great precedent against the notion of a popular White Paper, and certainly there is no objection to civil servants working on such a White Paper. They work on every White Paper, and if the hon. Gentleman does not believe that, he is guilty of considerable naivety.
I was asked about television and radio during the referendum campaign. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) suggested that paragraphs 33 and 34 of the White Paper were obscure. I do not share that view. They should be set in the context of the first sentence of paragraph 32, which reads:
" The Government have considered whether any special arrangements are needed either to limit or to assist activities by outside bodies and individuals designed to inform the public of their views on the issues involved in the referendum."

449
Paragraphs 33 and 34 in essence say that we are satisfied that the normal control operated during a General Election will suffice here, too.
Mr. William Molloy: Can my hon. Friend state whether the Government are considering the contemptible intervention by international civil servants such as Messrs. Thomson and Soames in a British affair, and will he ensure that when the referendum takes place the normal high standards of senior British civil servants are adhered to by the civil servants of Brussels?
Mr. Fowler: It would be exceedingly difficult to prevent any British citizen not himself in the direct employ of Her Majesty's Government from exercising the right of free speech in this country.
May I now turn to the wording of the questions. I noted carefully everything that has been said in the debate today, and we shall again go over carefully all the suggestions which have been made. I should like to comment briefly on the question of "be "or" stay" in the European Community. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West, on another piece of wording, said that we ought to get the technicalities right. So we should. My view is that it would be nonsense to ask whether we should be in the European Community when we are in the European Community. The word, therefore, should be "stay ".
As for a third question on the ballot paper, whether the decision should be left to Members of Parliament, I must resist that. Frankly, such a question would be a nullity. The final decision will be for this House in any event after the referendum. There is no point in asking an additional question to get the assent of the electorate to our doing what we shall have to do in any event.
As for the question about the words "European Community "and whether" European Economic Community "or" European Communities "might not be preferable, what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West said was basically right. The point, however, is that the words "European Community" are now used widely in communiqués from Brussels. They are used by Heads of Government. The question whether it is strictly legal for three communities which have common organs is scarcely
450
the point because we cannot belong to one community withtout belonging to all three. The only reason, therefore, for preferring the singular is that the plural might well mislead.
Mr. Buchan Mr. Buchan rose—
Mr. Fowler: I will not give way with only five minutes of the debate left.
We shall, however, consider all these suggestions, including the suggestion that "Common Market" might be added in brackets on the ballot paper.
The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) suggested that control of expenditure should be the same as in a general election. The great difficulty about the control of expenditure in a referendum is precisely that it is not the same as a General Election, in that there are no candidates. They are the organs through which expenditure in a general election is controlled. There are no parallel organs in a referendum.
It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport that we should ban Press advertising. We are certainly prepared to ban, as in a General Election, paid canvassers and the use of hire cars to drive electors to the polls. It would be unwise to go further than that. We certainly do not want to act in such a way as to encourage a low poll. In any event, paid advertising is not all that a newspaper contains and it would prove well-nigh impossible to control what appears in news columns or letters columns or editorials of newspapers.
The suggestion that we should ensure equality of paid advertising, with the Government in some way making up the deficit to any organisation that could not afford to take up its full share, would mean the Government incurring an open-ended cost. We could not agree to that.
One hon. Member asked whether the House might recess for the period of the referendum. My right hon. Friend will certainly give consideration to that, but I can give no undertaking whatsoever.
The House will appreciate that the timetable for the referendum operation is very tight indeed. Some aspects require preparatory work well in advance. Planning is going ahead on the basis of the proposals in the White Paper in certain respects. To be specific, where they are unavoidable at this stage, commitments in respect of poll cards, paper

451
for the Central Office of Information, and the preliminary reservation of Earls Court, are being entered into to enable us to keep to the timetable. If we were not to do that now, it would be impossible to keep to the timetable.
I was asked another set of questions about the two umbrella organisations. The principal point I want to make clear is that the parasol introduced into the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) is not one of those umbrellas, and I deplore any reference to the National Front in the debates we shall be having over the coming months. I hope that this will be a campaign conducted fairly and cleanly and that at the end of the day we shall get a clear verdict from the British people.
The difference between the Labour Party and the Tory Party is, in essence, this: at the 1970 election the Tories
promised Britain that they would not enter the EEC without the full-hearted consent of the British Parliament and the British people. They reneged on that promise. Today the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition suggested that in any event the British people should not be consulted, that we here know best.
We in the Labour Party believe that on such a profound constitutional issue we do not necessarily know best, that after all the years of debate the people know best, that the people shall have their say, and that we shall respect the will of the people. I think that the Tory Party has shown itself in the debate today to be profoundly undemocratic. We shall honour the pledges we gave at two general elections. We will not renege on those pledges.
Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—
The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 312.

Division No. 141.]

AYES

[12 midnight

Adley, Robert

Critchley, Julian

Hall, Sir John

Aitken, Jonathan

Crouch, David

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Alison, Michael

Crowder, F. P.

Hamilton Michael (Salisbury)

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Arnold, Tom

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Hannam, John

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Awdry, Daniel

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Baker, Kenneth

du Conn, Rt Hon Edward

Hastings, Stephen

Banks, Robert

Durant, Tony

Havers, Sir Michael

Beith, A. J.

Dykes, Hugh

Hawkins, Paul

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Hayhoe, Barney

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Heseltine, Michael

Benyon, W.

Elliott, Sir William

Hicks, Robert

Berry, Hon Anthony

Emery, Peter

Higgins, Terence L.

Biffen, John

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Holland, Philip

Biggs-Davison, John

Eyre Reginald

Hordern, Peter

Blaker, Peter

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Howe, Rt Hn Sir Geoffrey

Boscawen, Hon. Robert

Fairgrieve, Russell

Howell, David (Guildford)

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Fell, Anthony

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Hunt, John

Brittan, Leon

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Hurd, Douglas

Brotherton, Michael

Fookes, Miss Janet

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C 'f' d)

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Fox, Marcus

James, David

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)

Buck, Antony

Freud, Clement

Jessel, Toby

Budgen, Nick

Galbraith Hon. T. G. D.

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Bulmer, Esmond

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Burden, F. A.

Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)

Jopling, Michael

Carlisle, Mark

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Carr, Rt Hon Robert

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Channon, Paul

Gilmour. Sir John (East Fife)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Churchill, W. S.

Glyn, Dr Alan

Kershaw, Anthony

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Goodhew, Victor

Kilfedder, James

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Goodlad, Alastair

Kimball, Marcus

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Gorst, John

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Clegg, Walter

Gow, lan (Eastbourne)

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Cockcrott, John

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Knight, Mrs Jill

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Gray, Hamish

Knox, David

Cope, John

Grieve, Percy

Lamont, Norman

Cordle, John H.

Griffiths, Eldon

Lane, David

Cormack, Patrick

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Corrie, John

Grist, Ian

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Costain, A. P.

Grylls. Michael

Lawrence, Ivan

Lawson, Nigel

Osborn, John

Sproat, lain

Le Marchant, Spencer

Page, John (Harrow West)

Stainton, Keith

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Stanley, John

Loveridge, John

Percival, Ian

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Luce, Richard

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Pink, R. Bonner

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

McCrindle, Robert

Prior, Rt Hon James

Stokes, John

Macfarlane, Neil

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Stradling Thomas, J.

MacGregor, John

Raison, Timothy

Tapsell, Peter

Mackintosh, John P.

Rathbone, Tim

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Tebbit, Norman

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Madel, David

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Mates, Michael

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Mather, Carol

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Maude, Angus

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Townsend, Cyril D.

Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

Ridsdale, Julian

Trotter, Neville

Mawby, Ray

Rifkind, Malcolm

Tugendhat, Christopher

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Mayhew. Patrick

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Viggers, Peter

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Mills, Peter

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Wakeham, John

Miscampbell, Norman

Royle, Sir Anthony

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Sainsbury, Tim

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Monro, Hector

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Wall, Patrick

Montgomery, Fergus

Scott, Nicholas

Walters, Dennis

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Warren, Kenneth

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Weatherill, Bernard

Morgan, Geraint

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Wells, John

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Shepherd, Colin

Wiggin, Jerry

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Shersby, Michael

Wigley, Dafydd

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Silvester, Fred

Winterton, Nicholas

Neave, Airey

Sims, Roger

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Nelson, Anthony

Sinclair, Sir George

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Neubert, Michael

Skeet, T. H. H.

Younger, Hon George

Newton, Tony

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Normanton, Tom

Speed, Keith

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Nott, John

Spence, John

Mr. Adam Butler and

Onslow, Cranley

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Mr. Cecil Parkinson

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

NOES

Abse, Leo

Cant, R. B.

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Allaun, Frank

Carmichael, Neil

Duffy, A. E. P.

Anderson, Donald

Carter, Ray

Dunlop, John

Archer, Peter

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Dunn, James A.

Armstrong, Ernest

Cartwright, John

Dunnett, Jack

Ashley, Jack

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Ashton, Joe

Clemitson, Ivor

Eadie, Alex

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

Edelman, Maurice

Atkinson, Norman

Cohen, Stanley

Edge, Geoff

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Coleman, Donald

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Barrett, Guy (Greenwich)

Conlan, Bernard

English, Michael

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Ennals, David

Bates, Alf

Corbett, Robin

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Bean, R. E.

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Evans, John (Newton)

Bell, Ronald

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Crawford, Douglas

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Crawshaw, Richard

Farr, John

Bidwell, Sydney

Cronin, John

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E

Bishop, E. S.

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Fitch, Alan (Wlgan)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Cryer, Bob

Flannery, Martin

Boardman, H.

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Body, Richard

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

Fletcher Ted (Darlington)

Booth, Albert

Dalyell, Tam

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Davidson, Arthur

Ford, Ben

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Forrester, John

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Bradley, Tom

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Freeson, Reginald

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Deakins, Eric

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Buchan, Norman

de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

George, Bruce

Buchanan, Richard

Delargy, Hugh

Gilbert, Dr John

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Ginsburg, David

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Dempsey, James

Golding, John

Campbell, Ian

Doig, Peter

Goodhart, Philip

Canavan, Dennis

Dormand, J. D.

Gould, Bryan

454

455

Gourlay, Harry

Madden, Max

Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

Graham, Ted

Magee, Bryan

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mahon, Simon

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Grant, John (Islington C)

Marks, Kenneth

Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

Grocott, Bruce

Marquand, David

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Hardy, Peter

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C (Dulwich)

Harper, Joseph

Marten, Neil

Sillars, James

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mason,Rt Hon Roy

Silverman, Julius

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Meacher, Michael

Skinner, Dennis

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Small, William

Hatton, Frank

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Mitchell. R. C. (Soton, ltchen)

Snape, Peter

Heffer, Eric S.

Moate, Roger

Spearing, Nigel

Henderson, Douglas

Molloy, William

Spriggs, Leslie

Hooley, Frank

Molyneaux, James

Stallard, A. W.

Horam, John

Moonman, Eric

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Stott, Roger

Huckfield, Les

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Strang, Gavin

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Newens, Stanley

Swain, Thomas

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Noble, Mike

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Hunter, Adam

Oakes, Gordon

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Ogden, Eric

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

O'Halloran, Michael

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Janner, Greville

O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian

Thompson, George

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Orbach, Maurice

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Ovenden, John

Tierney, Sydney

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Padley, Walter

Tinn, James

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

Palmer, Arthur

Tomlinson, John

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Park, George

Tomney, Frank

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Parker, John

Torney, Tom

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Parry, Robert

Urwin, T. W.

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Pavitt, Laurie

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Pearl, Rt Hon Fred

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Judd, Frank

Pendry, Tom

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Kaufman, Gerald

Penhaligon, David

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Kelley, Richard

Perry, Ernest

Ward, Michael

Kerr, Russell

Phipps, Dr Colin

Watkins, David

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Watkinson, John

Kinnock, Neil

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Watt, Hamish

Lambie, David

Prescott, John

Weetch, Ken

Lamborn, Harry

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Weitzman, David

Lamond, James

Price, William (Rugby)

Wellbeloved, James

Leadbitter, Ted

Radice, Giles

Welsh, Andrew

Lee, John

Rees Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Reid, George

White, James (Pollok)

Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Whitehead, Phillip

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Whitlock, William

Lipton, Marcus

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Litterick, Tom

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Lomas, Kenneth

Roderick, Caerwyn

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Loyden, Eddie

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Luard, Evan

Rodgers, William (Stockton)

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Rooker, J. W.

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Roper, John

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Rose, Paul B.

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

McCartney, Hugh

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

MacCormick, Iain

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Woodall, Alec

McElhone, Frank

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Rowlands, Ted

Young, David (Bolton E)

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Ryman, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mackenzie, Gregor

Sandelson, Neville

Maclennan, Robert

Sedgemore, Brian

Miss Margaret Jackson and

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Selby, Harry

Mr. David Stoddart.

McNamara, Kevin

Question accordingly negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12.14 a.m.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a consolidation Bill covering amendments relating to criminal procedure in Scotland contained in no fewer than 61 Acts of Parliament and Acts of Adjournal extending as far back as 1587. The Bill has been before the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills and the Committee has made certain amendments to it. It has approved the inclusion of the Acts of Adjournal to render the consolidation intelligible. I am confident that this Bill, which is long awaited, will prove of great benefit to the courts and the practitioners involved in the criminal process in Scotland.
  In Committee amendments will be moved to take account of the fact that references in the Bill to local health authorities are now to be read as references to local authorities following upon the reorganisation of the National Health Service in Scotland. These local authorities will from 16th May 1975 be the new authorities, taking over on local government reorganisation. Likewise, references to regional hospital boards will require to be replaced by references to health boards.
  In moving that the Bill be read a Second time, I pay tribute to the work that has been done by the Parliamentary Draftsman and those who assisted him. It was a monumental task, and the consolidation that has been done will, I think, be of great benefit to the public in Scotland. This consolidation Bill amounts virtually to a code of criminal procedure for Scotland.
  12.17 a.m.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: On behalf of my party I welcome the new magnum opus which has emerged from the Lord Advocate's Department. On reading the debate that took place in another place I noticed that the Bill received a presentation lasting only two
  458
  minutes. That does not seem sufficient for the amount of work which has obviously been carried out.
  It has been observed that these consolidation measures are very often mere scissor and paste jobs. On looking at the Bill 1 would say that it has taken much more effort than that. As a law student I had to struggle through a lot of different references and a great number of Acts. In the courts I have suffered from the same problem. I give a personal welcome to this measure, although I do not know what it will do to the sales of that well-reputed volume, Renton and Brown.
  The production of this document will give great encouragement to those involved in the law of Scotland who would like to see it adapted to meet modern circumstances, even though, in this instance, it is purely clarification of work done throughout the centuries. Having started on this task of a major clarification of the law on criminal procedure in Scotland, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will now set to work and provide parliamentary time for reforming the law of diligence, reforming the law on conveyancing, and dealing with the scandal of the lack of time which has been given to the reform of the Scottish divorce law. I appreciate that time is short for legal reforms of that sort, but I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will press the Scottish Assembly into action as quickly as possible to deal with the badly needed reform of Scottish domestic legislation.
  12.18 a.m.
  Mr. Daniel Awdry: I thank the Lord Advocate for having neatly introduced a Bill of 464 clauses and nine schedules with such clarity and immense speed. I do not come from Scotland, but I am a lawyer and I believe that this consolidation of legislation is long overdue. I am sure that the consolidation will be of great assistance to those who practise in the criminal courts in Scotland. I therefore welcome the Bill.
  12.19 a.m.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I cannot share the general welcome which has been given to the Bill. I say that not merely as a member of the Joint Select Committee which helped to put it

  459
  before the House. As a practising lawyer I can see the great difficulties involved in codification. Codification is one of those solutions to or remedies for the confused state of the law which everyone thinks will produce simple or more easily understandable law within the compass of one book. But it never happens in that way. In practice, what we have here is an unrelated Bill purporting to consolidate existing Scottish law on criminal procedure which within days will be out of date, so much so that within the passage of this Bill it will be necessary to undo the work which the Joint Select Committee did by revising certain phrases and terminologies. Within a few days after that will come into force the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which will, I imagine, affect Clause 349 and certain other clauses dealing with what happens in connection with previous convictions of defendants.
  I refer to these points only because this is a perfect example of something which, on the face of it, appears to be an asset— a useful guide to laymen and lawyers in dealing with problems— but which, in practice, is nonsense, because within a matter of months it will be almost impossible to find anything in the measure which is up to date.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Stoddart.]
  Committee this day.

  SUPPLY POWERS BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill is a straightforward, non-controversial measure which consolidates the outstanding provisions of the Ministry of Supply Act 1939 and the enactments and instruments amending those provisions with the amendments which give effect to the recommendations in the reports of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission.
  I am sure that the House would wish to pay a tribute once again to both Law
  460
  Commissions for the painstaking work that they have done in preparing this and other consolidation measures which help to simplify the law and make the statute books a little less forbidding.
  This measure has been through the other place without amendment, having been introduced there by the Lord Chancellor, and it has also been scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I pay tribute to the Joint Committee. The work that it does is hardly glamorous, it is very hard. and. as the hon. Members for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) and Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) know well, being members of it, it seldom gets the headlines. The House would probably like to show its appreciation of the Committee and its chairman, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
  Mr. Daniel Awdry: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for moving the Second Reading briefly and concisely. His kind remarks about the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills will be much appreciated by the Committee. Those of us who serve on it are grateful for the wise guidance we receive from the chairman, and I pay my tribute to his patience and understanding. This Bill will be a useful consolidation measure, and we welcome it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.— [Mr. Stoddart.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 to 8 ordered to stand part or the Bill.

Clause 9

  SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Keith Stainton: My only comment is that the proceedings seem to be far too amicable. I am wondering naively what this is all about. Perhaps we may have some contributions.
  The Chairman: I may inform the hon. Member that this is a matter of consolidation.
  Mr. Stainton: To know that it is a consolidation measure does not help me very much. This Bill is a fairly substantial document, running to several pages. One has seen enacted critical measures much less cumbrous than this. All we have heard are congratulations.
  The Chairman: Perhaps I should inform the hon. Member that the Bill has been through the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, and we are discussing Clause 9.
  Mr. Stainton: Whether or not it has been through that Committee I do not know. I am a member of a Select Committee and a Standing Committee, and am preoccupied with other proceedings of the House. I have intruded upon these proceedings because I wish to inform myself. We have had a speech from the Parliamentary Secretary and congratulations from the Opposition Front Bench. I do not know what the Bill is about, and where it is leading us. However naively, I believe that I am entitled to ask what the Bill is about.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I am fortunate enough to have the Adjournment debate and I commend the Minister for the efficient and comprehensive way in which he introduced the measure. So complete was his explanation that I am sure most hon. Members will agree that it is not possible to add to our enlightenment on the important provisions of the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedules I and 2 agreed to.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I want to comment on the Third Reading.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): The hon. Member is too late. The House gave me instructions that the Question on the Third Reading was to be put forthwith. Much as I would like to hear the hon. Gentleman, I shall have to await another occasion.

  STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12.31 a.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I think that I can deal with this matter even more briefly than with the earlier measure. This Bill repeals 40 whole Acts and parts of other Acts, all of which are no longer in practical use. They range as far back as the year 1495. Like the consolidation measure it flows from the work of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. The measure has also been through the other place and has been considered by the Joint Committee. I commend the Bill to the House.
  12.32 a.m.
  Mr. Daniel Awdry: 1 shall not make a long speech. This is a consolidation measure and we welcome the brief way in which it was introduced by the Minister. The matter was fully discussed in Committee. We wish to raise no objection to the measure; indeed. we welcome it.
  12.33 a.m.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful for this opportunity to take part in the debate. I wish to say how disturbing it is that this measure should be launched on a sea of platitudes. It may have been scrutinised by a committee, but the point of Parliament is that we are a legislative Chamber and are expected to exercise a degree of scrutiny.
  I must point out that the Minister's introduction to this measure was less than I expected. I hoped for a more comprehensive explanation. After all, the House is not geared merely to those hon. Members who have Adjournment debates. We are here to discuss matters which affect the nation. Some of the provisions of this measure— measures which

  463
  obviously are being discussed with great haste and not before what one might call an "assembled throng "— could have serious consequences.
  No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister who introduced the Bill is fully capable of explaining what is happening, but I want to be proud of my hon. Friend. I want to tell my constituents what a grand job he is doing. I should like him to give a much fuller outline of the legislation with which the House is dealing. I do not think that that exercise has been satisfactorily carried out this morning.
  Parliament is not a rubber stamp, and 1 hope that it never will be. I certainly hope that, following the charade in Dublin, this Parliament will never become the rubber stamp that Brussels would no doubt like us to become.
  12.34 a.m.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has, not for the first time, got it all wrong. If he wished to assist the House in its deliberations, he should have taken a look at the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill. In that case he would have had something to complain about, since nearly 500 clauses went through the House virtually on the nod. That was a consolidation measure.
  On this occasion I can give this Bill an unqualified welcome. I am sure the hon. Member for Keighley will agree that the Bill with which we are now dealing seeks to repeal certain statutes. It seeks to get rid of 40 Acts which are no longer applicable. My only regret is that we have proposed the abolition of only 40 existing Acts of Parliament, some of which go back hundreds of years. The work of the Joint Select Committee would be better directed towards getting rid of obsolete, useless law, with less time being spent on the codification and consolidation of existing Acts, which are often out of date days after we consolidate them, such is the pace at which we pass new laws.
  Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that because of a slight technicality I was robbed of the chance to say a few words on the previous Bill. Therefore, my words concerned the
  464
  general tenor of legislation, and were not specifically directed to this Bill.
  Mr. Stanbrook: I shall not refer at length to the device by which the hon. Gentleman has managed, in his few words on this Bill, to speak of his objections to an earlier Bill.
  The Joint Select Committee exists to receive recommendations on what substantive existing law should be considered for repeal, and then to recommend to both Houses those matters which it considers should properly be put before them for repeal. It is a most valuable process. Unfortunately, each year we repeal fewer Acts than the number of new ones we put on the statute book. That is not progress. More consideration should be given to a higher output of repeals by the Committee, with less codification and clarification.
  12.37 a.m.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stan-brook) made a reasonable point when they suggested that when consolidation or repeal measures are put before the House we should be given, despite what has been done in Committees, the benefit of the essence of the wisdom of the Government and Opposition Front Benches. For example, the Bill of Rights — enshrining the principle of no taxation without representation— has already been repealed by our accession to the European treaties, but it has not been mentioned. We look forward to the time when we revert to having no taxation without representation.
  I make no complaint against my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, for whose ability and diligence I have great admiration. Together we have tried, on many occasions, to put the Tory Government right. It is only to be regretted that when we have a Labour Government we are not sufficiently to the Left. My hon. Friend has breadth of knowledge and the inspiration that we have come to expect from him, yet we do not know from him exactly what the Bill does.
  12.38 a.m.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) told me in a nutshell more

  465
  about the Bill than the Parliamentary Secretary had said in introducing it. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
  The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) was right to stress that legislation should not go through the House without proper explanation, and with discussion where necessary. He was honest enough to admit that by a technicality he was speaking not simply to this Bill but to the previous one. His remarks also applied to legislation that completed its passage through the House yesterday— the Finance Bill— on which there was little opportunity for proper discussion. Those remarks should be noted by his right hon. and hon. Friends.
  12.39 a.m.
  Mr. William Wilson: For about 10 years I have served on the Joint Consolidation Committee— the driest Committee of the House. I often think that the Members who serve on it deserve, if not the Victoria Cross, perhaps the Iron Cross for their services to the House. As one who has served on the Committee, I am glad that at long last an interest is being taken in the work that we do. I am sorry to hear hon. Members complaining now that they are not told enough about what we do.
  As for this Bill, when I am asked in years to come what I did in Parliament, I shall say that I reduced the size of the statute book by about 100 pages. When I think of all the excitement aroused by an hon. Member who puts one simple measure on the statute book, I am convinced that serving on the Joint Committee on Consolidation, removing statutes, is a much more valuable exercise. I think that I am of more use to the community doing that than are those who put measures on the statute book.
  12.40 a.m.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: As another member of the Joint Committee on Consolidation, I am pleased to agree with the Minister and with the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson).
  It is clear from the interest being shown by the hon. Members for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) in the activities of the Committee that their names should be put forward for service on it. I should consider it a great pleasure and honour to do
  466
  that. I am certain that they could make a substantial contribution to its deliberations.
  Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and I have the utmost confidence in the ability of the hon. Members at present serving on the Committee? In my view, they deserve not the Victoria Cross but the George Cross for the hard work that they do. What we are saying, however, is that when a Bill is presented to this House after the Committee's deliberations, we should be given a fuller explanation than simply that it concerns one statute — going back to the fifteenth century— which should be repealed.
  12.41 a.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I hope that I did not give the impression just now that such was my impatience to proceed with my Adjournment debate that I was not paying proper respect to these proceedings. But I assure hon. Members that I shall not use my own legal expertise to detain the House for very long on this measure.
  The hon. Members for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) would impress us more by their thirst for knowledge of this Bill if they had bothered, before coming into the Chamber, to read even the Short Title or the Explanatory Memorandum. The hon. Member for Keighley destroyed his point by making it clear that he had no idea of the subject matter of the Bill. It is obvious, therefore, that he would receive no illumination if the Minister had given a detailed explanation of it.
  I commend the work done by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson) and his colleagues, but I have doubts about the effort which goes into these consolidation or repealing measures. I share some of the misgivings of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), although he slightly overstated his case on the Scottish measure.
  The Law Commission, the Joint Committee and the parliamentary draftsmen spend a great deal of time producing consolidation measures or repeals, but I fear that the practical consequence is slight for those who practise law. Consolidation measures are overtaken

  467
  constantly by events. Repeals of this kind are unnecessary. What it comes to is that we are amending 140 Acts of Parliament which were doing no harm. No one has cited any of them for 100 years. They have never interfered in the process of the administration of justice, and they have had no effect on any adjudication made by the courts.
  It may offend someone's sense of neatness that there are on the statute book provisions about the appointment of rectors to various parishes in Lincolnshire, and so on, but they do no harm. The skills of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, to say nothing of those of the parliamentary draftsmen, would be better employed devising some improvement in the new legislation being turned out from this House, which causes constant trouble to those practising the law because it is so ill-drafted and so little understood.
  With those few comments on the work of this great Committee, I trust that the matter has been adequately debated, that the Committee proceedings will not be too protracted, and that important matters may be reached on the Adjournment.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—(Mr. Thomas Cox.)
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

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

  TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGES (CLOSURE)
  12.47 a.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am glad at this early stage to have the opportunity of raising the subject of the redundancies that are taking place in colleges of education all over the country, including my own constituency. I begin by making it clear that the redundancies that are about to take place arise out of the policy begun by the previous Government and continued by the present one of reducing the number of teacher training places in colleges of education and amalgamating the reduced colleges of education with other institutions of higher education to give a wider range of subject-matter and syllabus in the amalgamated larger polytechnics and other institutions.
  I agreed with that policy when it was instituted. It seemed a regrettable necessity to have to reduce the number of teacher training places to avoid oversupply, and I continue to agree with that policy and the welcome diversification that is taking place in colleges of education where former teacher training colleges are acquiring other courses or being amalgamated with other institutions.
  My anxiety is to ensure that that policy, when put into practice, is not carried out in such a way as to cause confusion and serious difficulties for those who have made their careers as lecturers and as staff in colleges of education. I raise this matter, which I think will have wider national implications, because my constituency happens to be particularly affected in the early stages.
  This is because although at the moment few precise details have emerged about the way in which individual institutions will be affected, my constituency contains many members of staff of the large Nottingham College of Education, at Clifton, which is to be much reduced in size. The staff is concerned with problems, the details of which I have put to the Minister in letters. The staff is particularly seeking to maintain the high quality and supply of teachers of shortage subjects that are greatly needed in our schools.

  469
  In my constituency there is also one of the first two colleges which has been marked for complete closure. That is a Roman Catholic college of education— the Mary Ward College, at Keyworth, in Nottinghamshire. The closure of that college was agreed to in October 1974, after I and others had made representations against closure to the Minister. After the Minister had consulted the Roman Catholic heirarchy it was agreed by those responsible for the administration of the college that its closure was inevitable. That has continued to give rise to some problems in the college.
  Students and staff are anxious that they should be allowed a full three-year rundown period until 1977, so that all students at the college can complete their courses. At the moment I am in the middle of an exchange of correspondence with Lord Crowther-Hunt, the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science. I am trying to get a quick assurance from him that the full three-year rundown period will be guaranteed.
  At the moment there are other matters with which the Minister can deal. I am content to leave that problem to the discussions which Lord Crowther-Hunt will be having. I hope he will soon be able to give me a reassuring reply. The unrest being created at Mary Ward College illustrates some other weaknesses in the preparation for the rundown and closure of a college of this kind. There is considerable unrest, particularly among the staff, who realise that as a result of the decision their jobs cannot continue after 1977. The staff at Mary Ward College, in particular, will be among the first to be affected by this nation-wide policy.
  This situation has implications for reassuring both staff and students and for making the position of both clear. A full three-year guarantee period is needed. That means that the staff must be persuaded that they are well provided for in redundancy terms and can feel secure, so that they do not have to look for alternative employment during the three-year period and the college runs as effectively as possible until the last moment and the students get the education to which they are entitled.
  I recently met most of the staff at the Mary Ward College. It was as a result of the fears and doubts which they expressed to me then that I was induced
  470
  to apply to Mr. Speaker for this debate. I am afraid that, far from feeling secure or reassured about their position when the college closes, the staff have grave doubts about their position.
  They were beginning to become suspicious about the bona fides of the Department because of the way in which they were being treated. There were great gaps in their understanding of the precise terms of their redundancy arrangements. I have given the Minister notice of some of the detailed questions that I would like him to answer for the benefit of my constituents and others. If there are gaps in my understanding of the position and the way in which I express these questions, this is simply a reflection of the fact that the complete staff of the college was not able to spell out to me in detail what their position is—despite all their efforts to get guidance from the Department and the appropriate union.
  I have some specific questions about the Crombie Code as applied to teacher training and those who are to leave education altogether, as well as about the Burnham situation on salary safeguarding for those who remain in education and are entitled to such safeguarding under the Burnham-Pelham arrangements.
  As I understand it, the Crombie Code is to be applied to teacher training for those who are going out of education altogether. Crombie was devised for 9 civil servants and was applied particularly to local government redundancies. It has not yet been re-phrased and interpreted for application to colleges of education. As redundancies are now facing the staff in this college the time has come when the exact application of Crombie ought to be made clear. The suspicion has been voiced to me that the difficulty is that the civil servants trying to do this in the Department of Education and Science are so burdened down by the problems of implementing the Houghton recommendations that they do not have the time to apply themselves to clarifying the Crombie Code with the urgency required.
  The points that I should like clarified — I know that the Minister will be helpful— are concerned, first, with the issue of long-term compensation for those who will go out of education because of these

  471
  redundancies. The first problem relates to the calculation of reckonable service for the purpose of this long-term compensation. My understanding is that the Department's present proposals are that the only period to be taken into account is the period of years when a lecturer has been contributing to the superannuation scheme that is available to him.
  It has been expressed clearly to me in a persuasive way that this is a very narrow interpretation of what reckonable service might mean. When one looks at how the Burnham and Pelham scales are applied for the purpose of increments, one sees that the teaching world is used to taking years of overseas teaching experience, industrial experience and war service as well into account in reaching a definition of recognised teaching service for certain periods under the salary scales. I trust that the Minister will say that the Department is prepared to take a more flexible view and will take a generous approach in deciding what is the reckonable service of a teacher for the purposet of long-term compensation.
  When long-term compensation is arrived at, I urge the Minister to look at inflation-proofing of long-term compensation, particularly for those who will be under 55 when they are made redundant and will not get the protection of the pension increase Acts. The Minister will know of my interest on other occasions in this House in the subject of pensions and long-term provisions of that kind. In present inflationary circumstances, to look at long-term compensation or long-term provisions of any kind without regard to inflation-proofing is to offer someone a meaningless protection in his later years.
  The second item under Crombie is resettlement compensation. This I take, from its description, to be compensation in a case where someone has to move to another part of the country in order to take up some alternative employment. I should like to know whether it is available only to those going out of education. I hope the Minister can say whether it can be paid in what will be numerous cases when a lecturer has to move out of his area where he has been lecturing to a job in education in another part of the country. Will he receive resettlement compensation in addition to the salary
  472
  safeguarding that is available under the Burnham-Pelham arrangements?
  On the question of safeguarding under the Burnham-Pelham arrangement, I put to the Minister some specific questions. First, will he define continuity of service for the purpose of qualifying? In present circumstances some people will find that they cannot get another job in education straight away. I trust that if they have a short period in another job they will not be debarred from salary safeguarding.
  I should like to know the range of employment in education to which salary safeguarding applies and how narrowly education will be defined. Will teacher centres and advisory teaching posts on Burnham scales provide safeguarded employment?
  Likewise, why does safeguarding seen, to apply only to the first job taken after moving from a college of education, and not to subsequent jobs, even if they are in education?
  I should also like the Minister to reassure me that, as I believe to be the case, the wording of the appropriate Statutory Instrument 747/1974, that a lecturer is
  " deemed for all salary purposes to hold the post that he held immediately before the closure and reorganisation,"
  means that he also is deemed to receive any increment or regrading given subsequent to his leaving.
  I hope that on the question of salary safeguarding those points are not too detailed for the Minister to shed a little light on them.
  Finally, I should like the Minister to tell me what assurance, if any, can be given to the non-academic staff who appear to have none of this protection at colleges such as Mary Ward College, because their future seems very uncertain.
  I apologise if I seem to be setting out a negotiating case which is normally conducted with the Department. I know that discussions are taking place with the ATCDE. However, not all my constituents concerned are members of ATCDE, nor are all those in colleges of education, nor are all those who are members in touch with their association's negotiators. The details should be produced now and be publicly available.

  473
  These people need to know now, when they are making plans to decide whether to stay in the college for a three-year rundown period, precisely what their position is.
  I ask the Under-Secretary to take this opportunity to describe with the maximum of clarity and detail the precise position of lecturers and others in colleges of education who face redundancy.
  1.1 a.m.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for agreeing to allow me two minutes on this problem. It directly affects my constituency, which has two training colleges in it. One— Anthony Training College— will probably go out of existence and the other will probably be absorbed into a new form of educational institute under the Hull education authority.
  The points I wish to make are supplementary to those made by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe. Although our colleges are those which are most threatened, there is nevertheless, over the whole sphere of further education for teacher training, this same threat. If we cut down the number of students by 40 per cent.— a policy imposed not so much by this Government as by the previous Government— those who will be affected to the greatest degree will be parents and students.
  Lecturers declared redundant from one college do not know whether it is safe to apply to another college, because the coherence of the plan of closures has not come out. There is, secondly, a feeling amongst lecturers that the colleges are being picked off one by one by the Department of Education and Science and that there has been little consultation with the staff and college authorities involved.
  Equally, lecturers are unsure of many aspects of the Crombie Code. They have a feeling that this document will not be seen by the majority of lecturers until it is laid before the House some time in June or July.
  Lecturers hope that they will get the same sort of protection as local government
  474
  officers got. Amongst the things they demand are that no further vacancies in colleges of education should be advertised until staff declared redundant have been taken up. Also, they are wondering whether early retirement could be encouraged amongst more senior staff in terms of years, thus making vacancies for the younger redundant staff. In particular, they are concerned about the need for retraining of members of staff who may wish to go back into teaching but who, because of the work they have been doing in colleges, do not have the necessary skills. There is the problem, as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe said, of non-academic staff— administrators—who in general circumstances would be employed by local authorities but who in this case will not be.
  Finally, what will happen to lecturers who, out of loyalty to students, particularly on divinity courses, remain to the end of the life of their college and then find that there are no vacancies for them when the time comes for them to seek employment elsewhere?
  1.4 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) for the very reasoned way in which he raised this serious problem and for the notice that he gave me of the subjects that he wanted to raise. I shall try to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member and with those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). I know the interest of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Over the past few months we have had talks about Alnwick.
  The total national requirement for teacher training places will have declined sharply by the end of the decade. It is the Government's policy that, wherever possible, colleges should develop new courses outside teacher training in order to make the fullest possible use of the places no longer required for the training of teachers.
  Changes of the magnitude that we have in mind, involving a major reorganisation of the teacher training system, will unfortunately, but inevitably, mean that some individual members of staff will be displaced.

  475
  The reorganisation will be taking place over a period of years so that large numbers are unlikely to be made redundant at any one time. It is not possible at this stage to say what the total will be. Some will be absorbed to replace natural wastage due to retirement. Others, no doubt, will seek posts elsewhere in the education service— in other establishments of higher and further education, in schools, or in educational administration, depending upon their qualifications and experience.
  I think that it would be helpful in responding to the various points raised by the hon. Member if I set them in context by outlining briefly the measures which have been taken to protect the interests of both teaching and non-teaching staffs in the colleges of education who are affected by the current reorganisation of higher education. I would stress this has been a joint effort by the Department, the local authority associations and the teacher associations, to whom I pay tribute.
  The first main measure is safeguarding. This means that a teacher in a college of education who loses his post as a result of the closure or reorganisation of the college will, subject to certain conditions, continue to receive the salary for the post he has lost where his new post in teaching carries a lower salary. Previously, the only safeguarding available to a college of education teacher related to a post in another college of education. Now the management and teacher panels of the Burnham Committees have agreed that it shall apply to a college of education teacher obtaining a post in a school or a college of further education. This extension of safeguarding will be specially valuable for those college of education teachers who lose their posts but decide, as I hope most of them will, to remain in teaching service.
  Secondly, on the initiative of the Association of Teachers in Colleges and Departments of Education, a staff redepolyment bureau has been set up to assist and advise college of education staff seeking other employment. No charge will be made for its services. The greater part of the costs will be met by a grant from the Department.
  Thirdly, the Government have agreed to provide compensation, on the basis of what is familiarly known as the Crombie
  476
  Code, to any teaching or non-teaching staff, full-time or part-time, who are made redundant directly as a result of the current reorganisation. The Crombie Code represents the most generous and comprehensive compensation available in the public service. It is applied only where there has been a statutory intervention with established expectations of employment. The statutory intervention in this case will be a direction given by the Secretary of State requiring a college to discontinue its courses or to reduce its intake of students. The direction will be given under new further education regulations which are currently being prepared.
  The compensation payable under the Crombie Code is of three kinds: resettlement compensation, long-term compensation and retirement compensation.
  Resettlement compensation consists of a lump sum calculated on the basis either of the applicant's length of service or his age. It can be equivalent to six months' pay, and is never less than three months' pay.
  Long-term compensation is paid to staff of 5 years' standing who have not reached retiring age. They may be compensated for complete loss of employment or reduction in pay. Compensation is based on length of service and age and can amount at maximum to two-thirds of former pay.
  Retirement compensation is payable from normal retirement age on the same terms as long-term compensation. It consists of a payment equal to the pension benefits to which the person is entitled, plus an addition related to the period between the date of loss and normal retiring age. There are also provisions for payments on death and payments of retirement compensation to people who have no pension rights.
  I turn now to the detailed points raised by the hon. Gentleman. If there are any that I do not have time to reach and the hon. Gentleman follows them up, I shall be only too willing to discuss them with him. The Department will apply the Crombie Code to college of education staff by making regulations under Section 24 of the Superannuation Act 1972. The regulations are at present being drafted. They will be circulated in draft to the interested bodies in April, and the Secretary of State expects to lay them before Parliament in June.

  477
  Safeguarding applies to the teacher who — here I quote from the Burnham Salaries Documents—
  " loses that post as a result of the closure or reorganisation of the college but continues in full time teaching service in an educational establishment ".
  Although the Secretary of State is represented on the Burnham Management Panel, the provisions in the salaries documents embody agreements reached in negotiation between the management and teacher panels. It is not for me to interpret these provisions, but I must say that, in the light of the passage I have quoted, I would have thought that a teacher who had a break in his teaching service would not be entitled to a safeguarded salary on his return to teaching. The hon. Member can take that up with me afterwards if he so wishes.
  Equally, the Burnham safeguarding provisions would not statutorily apply to employment in teachers' centres or advisory work. The salary paid in such employment is a matter for the local education authority, who could decide that the post justified a salary equal to that the teacher received in a college of education.
  Safeguarding is not restricted to the first post obtained after the loss of the college of education post. The salaries document says that safeguarding will cease to apply to a teacher— here again I quote—
  " who leaves a post to which appointed after the closure or reorganisation except on movement to another teaching post under arrangements approved by the employing authority, such approval not being unreasonably withheld ".
  On the scope of safeguarding, the answer is that a teacher is treated exactly as he would have been treated had he remained in his previous post. He receives increments and pay increases and any other benefits relating to his former post. This assumes, of course, that he does not get a teaching post which itself has a higher salary than his previous post.
  Resettlement compensation is payable to a member of staff who loses his post as a result of a direction from the Secretary of State if he has worked in the college for two years and satisfies certain conditions in the regulations, such as, that he has not been offered a post comparable
  478
  to the one lost, or a suitable post in the same locality.
  Teaching overseas or service in the forces would count for the purpose of assessing compensation if such service is accepted as contributory service under the teachers superannuation scheme.
  The compensation regulations will not themselves include provision for inflation proofing, but the Pensions Increase Act 1971 applies to long-term and retirement compensation. Increases under the Act would apply to staff aged 55 or over. If a member of staff was made redundant, say at 50, then at 55, the increases relating to the previous five years are then applied to his compensation. Thereafter a review is made annually.
  Non-academic staff will be covered by the compensation regulations. I believe I have covered most of the hon. Member's points.
  We appreciate that the redundancy of one individual is a serious matter, that is why I value the co-operation we have had. The Department will continue to keep in close touch with all interests concerned, and particularly with the Association of Teachers in Colleges and Departments of Education, the executive of which has expressed unanimously its appreciation of the efforts we are making. They work closely with us. If there is any matter which hon. Members wish to probe further it will be seriously and sympathetically considered by my Department.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: If I might with leave, Mr. Murton, I should like to thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Some points were cleared up satisfactorily and to others the replies were disappointing, but I am grateful for the explanation.
  I want to raise one point: when the draft of the Crombie Code is made available to interested parties, will it be so to individual lecturers or to staff, college by college, and not necessarily only to the association? Not all are members of the association, but they would be interested in seeing the draft before it is laid before this House.
  Mr. Armstrong: I take that point on board. I shall certainly consider it, but I should not like to give a complete assurance.
  Mr. McNamara: I should like to say, quickly, that that is a very good reply, and that a lot of suspicions have been cleared away.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past One o'clock.

DEFENCE
  Dockyards (Industrial Relations)
  Dockyards (Industrial Relations)
  Service Personnel (Exchange Schemes)
  Service Personnel (Exchange Schemes)
  North Sea Oil Rigs
  North Sea Oil Rigs
  Low Flying
  Low Flying
  Policy
  Policy
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Aircraft Contracts (HSA Ltd.)
  Aircraft Contracts (HSA Ltd.)
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Service Personnel (Children's Education)
  Service Personnel (Children's Education)
  Diego Garcia
  Diego Garcia
  Oman
  Oman
  Maritime Harrier Aircraft
  Maritime Harrier Aircraft
  Chieftain Tanks
  Chieftain Tanks
  EEC MEMBERSHIP (REFERENDUM)
  EEC MEMBERSHIP (REFERENDUM)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Salaries
  Members' Salaries
EMPLOYMENT
  Short-Time Working
  Short-Time Working
  Textiles
  Textiles
  Cost of Living (London)
  Cost of Living (London)
  Coal, Steel, Engineering and Textiles
  Coal, Steel, Engineering and Textiles
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Health Councils and Area Authorities
  Health Councils and Area Authorities
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Invalid Tricycles
  Invalid Tricycles
  Health Authority Land (Disposal)
  Health Authority Land (Disposal)
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Deafness (Television Programme)
  Deafness (Television Programme)
  Scientology
  Scientology
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
  Hospital Advisory Service (Reports)
  Hospital Advisory Service (Reports)
  National Health Service (Costs)
  National Health Service (Costs)
  National Health Service (Staff)
  National Health Service (Staff)
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  SCOTLAND (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  SCOTLAND (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  SECURITY (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS)
  SECURITY (GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS)
  SOCIAL CONTRACT (MINISTERS' SPEECHES)
  SOCIAL CONTRACT (MINISTERS' SPEECHES)
  SOCIAL CONTRACT (MINISTER'S SPEECHES)
  SOCIAL CONTRACT (MINISTER'S SPEECHES)
  M. ORTOLI
  M. ORTOLI
  M. TINDEMANS
  M. TINDEMANS
  SOUTH-EAST LANCASHIRE
  SOUTH-EAST LANCASHIRE
  EEC SUMMIT MEETING
  EEC SUMMIT MEETING
AGRICULTURE FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Pig Breeding Herd
  Pig Breeding Herd
  Pigmeat
  Pigmeat
  Fishing Grants
  Fishing Grants
  Fish Prices (Hull)
  Fish Prices (Hull)
  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Police Pensions
  Police Pensions
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
  CROWN COURT (BURY ST. EDMUNDS)
  CROWN COURT (BURY ST. EDMUNDS)
  RACE RELATIONS
  RACE RELATIONS
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Fifth and Sixth Formers
  Fifth and Sixth Formers
  School Places (Wakefield)
  School Places (Wakefield)
  School Transport Costs
  School Transport Costs
  Libraries
  Libraries
  Coventry College of Education
  Coventry College of Education
  Laurence Sterne (Portrait)
  Laurence Sterne (Portrait)
ENVIRONMENT
  Prefabricated Dwellings
  Prefabricated Dwellings
  Al (South Mimms)
  Al (South Mimms)
  Al (London)
  Al (London)
  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  M5
  M5
  M62
  M62
  Refuse (Non-Collection)
  Refuse (Non-Collection)
  British Rail (Passenger Forecasts)
  British Rail (Passenger Forecasts)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  American Central Intelligence Agency
  American Central Intelligence Agency
  EEC Countries (Detained British Subjects)
  EEC Countries (Detained British Subjects)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Finance Bill (Amendments)
  Finance Bill (Amendments)
  Taxation (Letter)
  Taxation (Letter)
  Inflation Accounting (Sandilands Report)
  Inflation Accounting (Sandilands Report)
  PAYE (Staff Dispersal)
  PAYE (Staff Dispersal)
  Double Taxation Convention
  Double Taxation Convention
  Dividend Taxation
  Dividend Taxation
WALES
  Area Health Authorities (Finance)
  Area Health Authorities (Finance)
  Mental Illness (Day Centres)
  Mental Illness (Day Centres)
  Council of Social Services
  Council of Social Services
  Social Work Cases
  Social Work Cases
  Unfit Housing
  Unfit Housing
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
ENERGY
  Fuel Costs
  Fuel Costs
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Offshore Supplies (Grants)
  Offshore Supplies (Grants)
  Gas
  Gas
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Derelict Houses
  Derelict Houses
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Housing (Rasharkin)
  Housing (Rasharkin)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Textiles
  Textiles
  Member's Correspondence
  Member's Correspondence
TRADE
  Air Travel (Customers' Compensation)
  Air Travel (Customers' Compensation)
  Hosiery Imports
  Hosiery Imports
  Machine Tools
  Machine Tools
INDUSTRY
  Supersonic Flights (US Report)
  Supersonic Flights (US Report)
  Rhodesian Project (EEC Participation)
  Rhodesian Project (EEC Participation)
  "Scottish Daily News"
  "Scottish Daily News"
SCOTLAND
  Fishing Grants
  Fishing Grants
  Hill Farming (EEC Aid)
  Hill Farming (EEC Aid)
  Industrial Development and Derelict Land Clearance
  Industrial Development and Derelict Land Clearance
  EEC Education Committee
  EEC Education Committee
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
  Autistic Children
  Autistic Children
  Blind and Deaf Children
  Blind and Deaf Children
  Portkil (Oil Project)
  Portkil (Oil Project)
  Caravans
  Caravans
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  EEC Membership
  EEC Membership

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.
The Lord Ailwyn—Took the Oath.
The Lord Skelmersdale—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PEERS AND THE PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE
Lord ROYLE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the fact that Peers are to be permitted to vote in the Referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Com-munity, they will now introduce legis-lation to enable Peers to vote at General Elections.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, although the analogy with the Referendum is not exact, the Government incline to the view that such a change might be made when legislative opportunity allows.
Lord ROYLE: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether it is a fact that, while there is nothing in legislation which says that Peers must not vote, there is also nothing to say that they can vote? In these circumstances, will the Government push on with this matter instead of waiting for a so-called opportunity to introduce legislation? Can they not introduce a one clause Bill to get it out of the way?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, there was a Resolution of another place in 1802 which related to this matter and that Resolution has since been held to be declaratory of the law of

136
the land. That is the situation and there-fore, in our view, legislation would be necessary.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, is the Minister aware that British citizens in our Mission at the United Nations are not able to vote in our Elections and that some of them are very agitated about this issue? I can give the Minister letters that I have received from some of these civil servants. Is there any possibility of this situation being changed?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, although the question raised by my noble friend is on a rather different matter, the Government are aware of this problem and we shall certainly look at it.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend explain the mystery— because it appears to be a mystery to many people—of why Members of this House are excluded from voting at Parliamentary Elections? Is it not the case that they are permitted to vote in council elections in the districts and the counties? Why is a Parliamentary Election different?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, at the risk of appearing slightly frivolous—and I would not wish to appear so in answering my noble friend—I fear that this is a question which might have been addressed to the House of Com-mons in 1802 when they passed this Resolution. It has since been held to be declaratory by the courts; and that is the situation which now confronts the House.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, what is the penalty attaching to the offence if a Peer casts a vote in a General Election?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am sure that it would be an exceedingly grave matter. I will look into it and let the noble Lord know.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I was on the Register by mistake, and after inquiring I was told that if I voted I should spend the rest of my life in the Tower?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, all Members of this House who are on the Register are entitled to

137
vote in local authority elections. The question is whether we should have this right in Parliamentary Elections.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, might it be wiser not to give Peers a vote in the Referendum, since they are all pro-Marketeers?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, it might conceivably be controversial if I were to answer my noble friend in the precise way in which I should choose to.
Lord BOYLE: My Lords, may I ask a further supplementary question? In view of the fact that, according to the White Paper, Peers are now to be permitted to vote in the Referendum, will not bankrupts, criminals and mental patients also be permitted to do so? Would not many of them not be in jail or not be bankrupt at the time we have decided what shall happen about the Common Market?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I have indicated that the Government feel that the law should be changed when the opportunity occurs, so far as possible in Parliamentary Election constituencies. That being so, I think that the Government recommendation, so far as the Referendum is concerned, is a logical and reasonable one.

EEC: HISTORY OF ENTRY NEGOTIATIONS
2.41 p.m.
Lord WIGG: 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 on what grounds the "30 year rule" is held to apply to the official history of the negotiations leading to the United Kingdom entering the European Community written by Sir Con O'Neill on a special contractual basis for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and whether they will seek the agreement of the Prime Minister at that time to the publication of that history,
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the term "official history" is misleading in this context. This document was a confidential report to the then Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and as such it is a Departmental record to which the 30-year rule normally applies. The present Government see no reason for proposing a change in normal practice in respect of this report.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, does the noble Lord not recollect that on the previous occasion when he answered a Question that I put down he then said that it was the custom for one Administration not to see the documents of the previous Administration? Does the noble Lord also recall that I said I thought that was a respectable doctrine which ought to be maintained? Can he explain how it comes about that the Heath Administration must have seen the papers covering the negotiations by the present Prime Minister? How does he square that fact? Furthermore, would he be good enough to refresh his memory, if he has not done so already, on the three previous exchanges—two in 1966, and one in 1969 —which made it perfectly clear that any Administration, in consultation with the Opposition, could publish, if it were thought necessary and in the public interest? Would he not agree—
Several Noble Lords: Order! Too long.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that on this occasion it is of paramount importance, in sup-port of the doctrine, that we should have all the cards on the table, face up, and not merely those which are convenient to either one side or the other?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is not the view of Her Majesty's Government that the publication of this document outside the 30-year period would in any way assist in the proper examination by the people of the issues involved in the Referendum. As to the dictum which the noble Lord quite properly put forward, it is the position that a Government do not have access to papers prepared for a previous Govern-

139
ment. I have no knowledge of a proceeding concerning the Government headed by Mr. Heath to which my noble friend has referred; I have no knowledge as to what happened then.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, as Sir Con O'Neill wrote this report while still in official employment, is it not clear that it should be treated as all other Foreign Office confidential documents of that time are treated? Is is not also clear that it is not necessary to read such a detailed report to see what was achieved and to understand the great importance of the success of those negotiations to this country?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, this paper is exactly on a par with any other paper prepared at the request or command of a Minister to which a civil servant accedes. There is no difference at all. The point at issue is whether, if this paper were published out of turn, it would assist in any way. The view of Her Majesty's Government is that it would not. As to the second point raised by the noble Lord, I entirely agree.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that it is obvious that if the previous Administration, for what-ever purpose, authorised Sir Con O'Neill —not as part of his official duties but on a special contractual basis—to write this history, the papers must have subsequently come back to the Minister, and therefore they must clearly have had access to the detailed negotiations carried on by Mr. Wilson as Prime Minister up to 1970? If the report is so favourable, why should anyone want to hesitate about publishing it? I am supposed to be an anti-Marketeer, but I am all in favour, in one way or the other, of putting all the cards on the table, face upwards. I hope the Minister will accept that what is important to me is not whether we stay in or come out—
Several Noble Lords: Order!
Lord WIGG: My Lords, what is important is that the British public should know all the facts.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I agree it is extremely important that the British public should know all the facts. The question is whether this

140
would help in placing all the relevant facts before the public. I have no knowledge of whether the last Government had access to the papers of the Government previous to them, and I cannot answer the noble Lord on that point. He has made his point that he is in favour of the widest possible publication for the illumination of this question, as no doubt he has always been, especially during his own distinguished tenure of office as head of an equally confidential Department.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the Minister be good enough to bring this matter to the notice of the Prime Minister with a view to his having con-versations with Mr. Heath to see whether, on the basis of agreement, this document can be published? This document has been paid for by the public; why should they not have the chance of seeing it?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have no doubt that the Prime Minister is an assiduous student of Hansard, especially when he knows that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, contributes to it.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree, with due respect to the noble questioner's long experience in Government service, that compliance with his request would be a very "dis-organising" matter for the public service as a whole?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, such a move would have far-reaching effects, not least on the con-fidentiality of negotiations between one Government and other Governments. This is an aspect about which we must be very careful when we decide whether to take the publication of any confiden-tial document of this kind out of turn.

SECURITY SEARCHES BY GOVERNMENT MESSENGERS
2.49 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether as from 17th March 1975 Gov-ernment messengers have been instructed by their union not to search the

141
hand baggage or car boots belonging to visitors to Government Departments, and whether this will result in the closure of certain offices to the public, and if so which.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, I understand that the Civil Service Union, which represents messengers employed in Government Departments, has so instructed its members. The Civil Service Department is engaged in talks with the Union with a view to resolving the matter and is also consulting other Departments. I am hopeful that a solution satisfactory to all par-ties will shortly be found.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that he has not answered the second part of my Question, as to which Departments are concerned regarding possible closure? Would he be good enough to tell me which Departments are likely to be con-cerned?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, at present this question is largely hypothetical. I hope a solution will be found before 17th March, in which case none of these offices will be closed.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Public Record Office, which attracts over 2,000 readers weekly, many of them coming from overseas, will be affected unless the situation is resolved by 17th March, and that the Civil Service Union gave notice of their intention to the Department some six months after an interim arrangement had been made in August? Could he personally intervene and meet both sides to stop this closure taking place?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have already expressed the hope that a satisfactory conclusion will be reached and that there will be no question of any of these offices being closed.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, can the Minister say why the union are not interested in aiding in the promotion of public security?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if I may say so, the supplementary question

142
of the noble Lord is, as usual, not particularly helpful.
Lord INGLEWOOD: Shame!
Lord SHEPHERD: The messengers of the Civil Service provide a very notable service, not only to your Lordships' House but also in all the Government Departments. They have undertaken special duties in this time of emergency. What they are now seeking is a form of regrading; that is what the negotiations are about. Their threat of a certain withdrawal, I suspect, is a traditional way of seeking to bring a settlement more quickly than perhaps they themselves may have expected. But I hope that no reflection upon the messengers of the Civil Service will be accepted by your Lordships' House.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he thinks that, if Government messengers did search some of the baggage, they would find the Social Con-tract?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I wel-come the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition back to the Front Bench. Obviously his journey in the sunshine has done him a lot of good. I hope he will keep that colour, too.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the time has now arrived when the Whitley machinery covering the Civil Service in this country is due for overhaul and that it has become more or less obsolete in many respects? Is he aware that, having had long experience in regard to Whitley machinery governing 420,000-odd people, I am of that opinion and think the time has arrived when there ought to be an overhaul?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, all things concerned with human beings—and this is also to be found in your Lordships' House—can do with some improvement and modernisation; but I should not like it to be thought that the Whitley machinery, which has stood the test of time, is not adequate for present negotiations. This is a matter which both sides need to look at, and no doubt it is being looked at.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that for years the Whitley machine has been a body dealing with dragged-out negotiations, and that at the end of the day the men become frustrated and take unofficial action because the machinery takes too long to take a decision?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Whitley machinery provides an opportunity for both sides, the representatives of employers and the representatives of workpeople, to meet in a civilised way to find a solution to their difficulties. On occasions it may be long and protracted, but that is not necessarily the fault of the Whitley machinery.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if action is taken in this instance it will be official?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord is obviously far better aware of the circumstances than I am. I hope that he is not right.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, will the Minister say whether searching of boots of motor-cars is not a job of some expertise, and whether it is inappropriate that it should be carried out by this par-ticular category of employee? Should it not be done by people specially trained to discover things that are hidden, and to deal with them if they discover them? May this not perhaps quite justifiably explain the problem?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, obviously those who have undertaken these duties feel that there should be recognition of their work. But we are in a difficult period of threats to public buildings, and if we were to rely upon experts to do work of this kind then of course we should not be able to provide the same amount of cover as we have done during the last two or three years. Much should be said in commendation of all our staff who have, as part of an extra duty, carried out the searches which have given protection to our public buildings.

LULWORTH RANGES: MINERAL WORKINGS
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 whether they will investigate the circumstances under which Pike Brothers, Fayle and Co., predecessors of English China Clays, operated for 20 years an open pit, 80 feet in depth, at West Creech, Dorset, within the Lulworth tank ranges, without planning permission from the county council.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPART-MENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, the planning control of mineral workings is a matter for the local planning authority. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is informed that Dorset County Council granted planning permission for the working of ball clay on this site in February 1974 after due consideration of the circumstances of the case. He sees no cause for any further investigation of the matter.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether it does not avoid the Question which I put? Is it not the case that it is only since 1971 that Crown land has been permitted to accept arrangements without the permission of the local authority, and that for 17 years before that excavations were made without any authority at all from the Dorset County Council? During those 17 years were not these actions illegal, and does the matter not justify an inquiry by Her Majesty's Government?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, in answer to the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question, a private firm operating in this way on Crown land requires normal planning permission, and always has done so. On the second part of his question, I agree it is clearly regret-table that the matter was not dealt with at the proper time. But it must be remembered that the planning authority did not have access to the site, which was then used by the War Office, and it is an unfrequented area of the range.

145
Also at the time there was a moratorium on ball clay workings while this matter was being looked into. It was under-stood that the firm was going to put in a detailed planning application. Also at the same time in the same area, which as I think my noble friend is aware is not accessible to the public, there were other workings. In fact there was an error and this is agreed, but in fact the whole matter was looked into and Dorset County Council, which is the planning authority, gave planning permission in 1974.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the duty of the company to make an application to the planning authority, and is it also the case that no application was made until recently, on the recommendation of the adviser of the English Clay Cross, and that it was not until February last year, after 20 years, that planning permission was given to this company?
Baroness B1RK: No, my Lords, that is not quite so. As I understand it, an application was made in 1953. All the things I have already referred to then happened, which complicated the error. Then, in about 1969 it is true that the firm started operations—as I understand it, under the mistaken belief that they had planning permission. It was then found out this was not so after an aerial Ordnance survey, and then they asked for planning permission. If Dorset County Council had not wanted to give planning permission in 1974 they need not have done so, but in fact they did.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, did the Minister notice that her noble friend said "English Clay Cross" as opposed to "English China Clays"? Perhaps she might advise him to apply the same rules of law to the Clay Cross gentlemen.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I cannot be responsible for any Freudian errors that might be made.
Lord ARWYN: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that neither the present occupiers nor their predecessors have acted otherwise than honourably and legally all the way through, and have never in any way deliberately sought to evade planning obligations?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords. I think that my noble friend, who has great knowlege of this particular area and the company, is right.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, did I correctly understand the noble Baroness to say that an application for this development was in fact made in 1953? If that is right, may I ask what happened to that application? Was it refused or allowed?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, there seems to have been some confusion because several things happened together. As I explained, there was a moratorium at the time because there was a standing conference on ball clay; the county council evidently expected a more detailed plan; the land was inaccessible and nobody ever got to see it, and I think the company thought they were doing the right thing. I understand why the noble Lord is shaking his head, because it is very complicated. The company thought that they were in the right. The planning authority were not aware of this. When they became aware of it they gave permission. It is in an area where ball clay quarrying is going on.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, provided that no tank fell in, did it much matter?
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, in connection with the question of environment, is the noble Baroness aware that we on the "cheaper" seats at the back are suffering from a very cold draught blowing round our legs? What does the noble Baroness propose to do about it?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am happy to say that that is a quite different Question, but I myself have taken the precaution of wearing high boots!

DIRECT GRANT SCHOOLS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House at a convenient moment after 3.30 my noble friend Lord Crowther-Hunt will be repeating a Statement on Direct Grant Schools.
FINANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read la, and to be printed.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
3.1 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shepherd)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of Listowel in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Amendments of the principal Act]:
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD had given Notice of his intention to move Amend-ment No. 11:
Page 3, line 4, at end insert (" and after the word " whatsoever " there shall be inserted the words "or the dismissal is by the publisher of a newspaper or newspaper proprietor or broadcasting organisation and is of a person employed by a newspaper, newspaper proprietor or broadcasting organisation for the purposes of writing or editing any part of the text, drawing any picture or taking or assisting in the taking of any photograph for any newspaper or periodical, or preparing the text of or broadcasting any wireless or television programme that is designed to inform the public as to the news or any comment on the news or on current or political affairs," ")
The noble Lord said: It is my intention to seek your Lordships' leave not to move this Amendment at this moment. There are other interesting Amendments down on the Marshalled List. On behalf of my noble friends on this side of the House, I reserve the right to come back to the matter if things do not turn out as I anticipate that they will. I beg leave not to move the Amendment.
Lord GOODMAN Lord GOODMAN had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 11A:
Page 3, line 9, at end insert—
(" ( ) After section 29(7) of the principal Act (meaning of trade dispute) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section a dispute over the publication or non-publication of an article (whether for reward or otherwise) shall not be a trade dispute." ").
The noble Lord said: I think it would be convenient if I could present these Amendments with the later Amendments. It would save repeating a number of

148
arguments. With the leave of the House, I should like to do that.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I wonder whether the noble Lord could speak more loudly. I suspect, from the pained expression of the Lord Chairman, that nobody at this end of the Chamber has heard the remarks of the noble Lord.
Lord GOODMAN: A famous remark was made in the other House by some-body who, when interrupted in similar circumstances, said that he did not think anybody was listening! However, I am sure that that does not apply here.
Lord SHEPHERD: This is an important debate, and I know that the noble Lord has an important speech to make. Unfortunately, some of the microphones are not working and I suspect that the noble Lord may be standing underneath one of them. The size and the acoustics of your Lordships' House will put a great strain upon the noble Lord. May I therefore suggest that, while still remaining on the Cross-Benches, the noble Lord should seek to move his position in order to be under a microphone.
Lord GOODMAN: If the noble Lord remains as helpful as that for the whole of the debate, we shall have a very short debate! I was asking the indulgence of the Committee by suggesting that it would save time if I could move these Amendments with the other Amendments which are down in my name. It has been suggested that I might deal with them all now. Would that be appropriate?
Lord SHEPHERD: If the noble Lord is considering moving his Amendment to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I do not think that this would be possible. I cannot see how it is possible to move an amending Amendment to an Amendment which has not been moved. In the circum-stances, since this may turn into a general debate, I am wondering whether the noble Lord might consider not moving these Amendments. Then we should have a debate on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. Then the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, could follow immediately and we could have a general debate. I think we are in the difficulty that if the noble

149
Lord wishes to speak to the Amendments it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we did it in an orderly way and tied it to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I hope I may be for-given for being pedantic, but we have not had the Question, That Clause 1 stand part. We are starting off on the wrong foot until we have it.
Lord FLETCHER: Is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that copies of these Amendments are not available in the Vote Office?
Lord SHEPHERD: I apologise if my noble friend has not got the Amendments. Efforts were made this morning to make available to the House a new Marshalled List. However, the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and the major Amendments of the noble Lord. Lord Goodman, were on the Marshalled List that was made available to the House yesterday. Therefore, I think that your Lordships' House will be aware of what both noble Lords are proposing. I think that we ought to get into order. Therefore I hope that the clause can be put and that we can then move to Clause 2.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: It was put last night.
Lord SHEPHERD: Then the noble and learned Lord is also wrong!
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I apologise. I am afraid that I was misinformed.
Lord GOODMAN: It would probably be to the convenience of the Committee if I did not move the Amendments at this stage and attributed the remarks that I wish to make to the main Amend-ment—the Amendment to the Amend-ment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. With leave, I will not move the Amendment.
3.9 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved manuscript Amendment No. 12A:
Page 3, line 9, at end insert—
(" ( ) In section 30(1) of the principal Act (interpretation) in the definition of "union membership agreement", after

150
paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following words—
"and
(d) shall not include within its provisions employees of a particular class who are in membership of an independent trade union unless they consent to such inclusion by a two-thirds majority in a secret ballot."").
The noble Lord said: May I first apologise to the Committee for the lack of printing facilities. I am sure that the Committee is aware that my own Amendment is not the sole Amendment to be afflicted by this problem. The Amendment is in the nature of a probing Amendment. It seeks the same kind of protection for all kinds of employees working in an organisation who already belong to an existing association or union. Such employees may well feel that their interest and their particular skills or profession are not adequately represented by another larger union. While the employer may feel that such a minority of employees within the organisation can be, and is, represented to his or their satisfaction by a large union with whom he has an existing agreement, nevertheless this particular class of employee may not share the opinion of the employer.
This Amendment seeks to allow such employees to exercise their choice as to which union will represent them in any negotiations with the employer or, in-deed, with other unions in the organisation. I am advised that the particular class of employee would be a group of employees who carry out an easily identifiable and recognisable function within any organisation. For example, we find specialist professional engineers; we find lawyers; we find accountants belonging to six or seven professional bodies which cover that profession. Also we find surgeons who, I am told, are already being solicited by the Technical Division of the Hospital Employees' Union. I submit that in the case of these latter employees the situation is verging upon lunacy, because here we have a body of professional and highly qualified men or women who perform one or more specialised, skilled functions. This group of professional employees may be a small minority, but they merit the same consideration as any other employees within an organisation.
I hope the Government will consider that they have a right—or, at least,

151
should be allowed a right, if it is decided that they do not already have it— to decide who shall represent them in any dealings with their employer. I believe that the most satisfactory method of discovering the wishes of such employees would be by a secret ballot. This is in the nature of a probing Amendment and seeks to ask the Government to protect this or any other class of employee from involuntary incorporation into a union which they consider does not give them adequate protection, or does not adequately represent their interests. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: I think the Commit-tee will appreciate that we have had very short notice of this Amendment. Further-more, we have had considerable difficulty in determining what it means. However, after hearing the noble Lord I feel that its intended effect is that employees, who at the time when a closed shop agreement is made are members of a union which is not specified for the purposes of the closed shop agreement, should not be covered by the agreement and hence should not be compelled to change unions or to join another union, unless two-thirds of the employees agree that they should do so. Is that the position?
Lord LYELL: Yes, that is so.
Several Noble Lords: Order!
Lord JACQUES: I heard what was said, but I must resist this Amendment. I do so because I think it is unnecessary and may even lessen the chances of adequate safeguards being agreed for members of minority unions; not because I do not think that transitional arrangements should be made for employees who are not members of closed shop unions when a closed shop is established. The Amendment relates to the union membership agreement which the Government have defined in Clause 2(3) and (4) of the Bill. It is provided that those negotiating closed shop agreements shall do so with all the flexibility needed to make special transitional arrangements. One of the reasons which encouraged us to make these amendments was a legal doubt as to whether current members of a non-closed shop union could be excluded from the identifiable class by reason of their union membership, without invalidating the agreement. We know that, in practice,

152
those in industry frequently make arrangements of that kind. We do not want the law to prevent their doing so and we are confident that it is not now doing so.
The parties to a closed shop agreement can therefore make transitional arrangements for members of a minority union, even if such unions are not recognised as specified unions for the purpose of the areement as Clause 2(3) makes plain that they may be. I have no doubt that the parties will in practice do so. It is not in an employer's interest to run the risk of having to dismiss some of his employees, particularly scarce professional and managerial staff, because he has agreed to a closed shop which requires them to join a different union. No sane employer would agree to that kind of closed shop arrangement.
I do not think that we need to spell out in a Statute the measures designed to achieve an effect which all sane employers and unions would, in any case, want to achieve. Moreover, there are risks in our doing so. If members of minority unions think they are protected by this kind of statutory provision, which could result in their being eligible for compensation if dismissed for not forming a closed shop union, are they not less likely to seek to negotiate with their employer and to seek more lasting safe-guards for themselves and their union? They all have to negotiate for recognition of their union, for the purposes of a closed shop agreement, as the right union to represent some employees who accept that people in their grades should not, irrespective of their present union mem-bership, come within a closed shop agreement. We do not think that it is realistic or desirable to impose restrictions or dis-incentives in regard to negotiations about closed shop agreements. We are con-vinced that the end results of doing so would be less satisfactory for all con-cerned, including the individuals or minorities which this House is rightly anxious to protect.
I should add that there are certain drafting difficulties about this Amendment. For example, the words "of a particular class" do not appear to add to the meaning, and may cause confusion when compared with the idea of the employees of an identifiable class being covered by a closed shop. Nor is it clear

153
why employees who are members of a specified union for the purposes of a closed shop need to be balloted about the establishment of a closed shop. I suspect that we might also need to say a little more about balloting arrangements and about who is to be balloted. But such drafting difficulties are not the reason why I must resist this Amendment.
Lord LYELL: I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply, but I must say that it is not totally satisfactory. I admit that there have been difficulties in drafting, and I would seek to apologise to the noble Lord and to the Committee for the short notice which I have given. With regard to the last remarks of the noble Lord, it seems quite clear to me that the balloting procedure to which I was referring should take place within a minority union or association which feels endangered by a larger union, or by both unions within the closed shop. Given that slight point of drafting. I would seek leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I might like to raise it again on Report.
Lord BOWDEN: This matter is very important and I must confess that the elucidation given by my noble friend is not as clear as it might have been. I wonder whether it is possible for the Government to think again about this Amendment. I should like, in particular, to ask how it is possible to protect, for example, members of an engineering union. The professional engineers may not be required to join the ordinary union which covers the rest of the factory. This matter has been raised earlier and I cannot recall how it was settled. It is a matter of great importance which needs further study and I do not think, with the short notice we have had, that we can comment on it in detail at this stage. It is far more important and complicated than the reply which the Government have given would seem to indicate.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I am particularly interested in the professional engineers, and I very much regret that I have not had an oppor-tunity of talking to the noble Lord who moved the manuscript Amendment. I do not think it would be very useful if I were to go into all the problems faced

154
by the professional engineers some time ago in my part of the world, but I have heard from them because, rightly or wrongly, they considered that I once did them a service and felt that it would be in their interests if some real advocacy to protect their interests as a small association of professional engineers were included in the Bill. I am sure your Lordships will realise that I am not technically equipped to speak on industrial matters of this kind, except that I represented a highly industrial area in another place for very many years and have acquired a great many friends, irrespective of whether they voted for my Party or for the Opposition Parties. At any rate, I received a very happily worded request from the professional engineers, who feel that they want a specific undertaking.
When I raised the matter briefly last night, I did not then go into detail because there are so many aspects which I am not qualified to deal with. But I know from my past contacts with the professional engineers—and I am sure that there are other small bodies of people who are equally concerned, but about whom I could not speak—that this Amendment is absolutely essential for the protection of small trade unions. The professional engineers have a proper trade union of their own and they wish to support trade unionism in its fullest sense. But it must be obvious to noble Lords that in indus-trial life today, as indeed it was in the past, there are always sections which do not fit into the overall plan. I think that must be accepted. Last night the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, kindly suggested that I ought to listen—as indeed I have done —to what is said today, but I am not at all happy about the position and I was very pleased when the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, suggested that the Amendment ought to be looked at again.
I shall be grateful if that can be done, because I do not quite see what I can do to protect the interests of the professional engineers if my noble friend with-draws the Amendment. As noble Lords know, I am not experienced in this House—indeed, I have been in it for only a week—so I do not know what I personally can do, but as there are other noble Lords who think that these people, who are genuine and professional members of trade unions, are not satisfactorily covered, are we to understand from the

155
answer given by the noble Lord that there will be adequate and proper protection, and that what these people want will not depend on the decisions of the larger unions? I do not believe in large numbers of people overruling small bodies of people whose interests though not separate in the trade union sense, include a special interest of their own.
If the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, cannot produce an Amendment to cover the professional engineers, I shall be grateful if he will agree to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, that we should have another occasion—perhaps at Report stage, if we have one —when we can ensure that the professional engineers and others in similar circumstances are adequately and properly protected. I am sorry not to be able to go into more technical details, but I am doing the best I can for people for whose operations in the industrial world I have a great regard. I know that those operations are very necessary to industry and we want the maximum co-operation in all parts of the world, between industrialists of all kinds. There-fore, I want to know that we shall be able to protect their interests at a later stage, if that is the way in which the matter must be dealt with.
Baroness SEEAR: We on these Benches are also extremely interested in this issue, and are most anxious that the small independent unions should receive adequate protection. In the reply given by the Minister, I thought I detected that the Government had in mind some way in which this protection could be adequately ensured. As we have seen the manuscript Amendment only in the last few minutes, may we ask that there should be some consultation on this matter before Report stage so that we may be assured that this extremely important matter is being adequately taken care of?
Lord COOPER of STOCKTON HEATH: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will resist this Amendment. It was indicated that it would be with-drawn, but this discussion illustrates the difficulty into which this House gets when it strays from the legislative arrangements and gets down to particular cases. This is special pleading for a small organisa-
156
tion. In practice, the matter is settled either by the trade union side with the joint body concerned, or jointly between the trade union side and the employers. The noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, said that she wants to protect the small unions against the big unions, but is this Committee going as far as that? Will it impose upon the trade union movement certain exceptions to their own voluntary arrangements? This leads into all sorts of difficulties, particularly fragmentation and the encouragement of breakaway unions. Therefore, I hope that the Amendment will be resisted.
Lord JACQUES: May I ask noble Lords to hold their horses for just a minute? There are serious drafting difficulties in connection with the Amendment which is before the Committee, and the mover has said that he is willing at this stage to withdraw it. This subject will be fully ventilated when we deal with Amendment No. 13, which is next on the Marshalled List. After noble Lords have heard the debate on that Amendment, they will be free to fire questions at me or to table Amendments for the Report stage, and I suggest that that is the better procedure.
Lord LYELL: With the leave of the Committee, may I correct the noble Lord? As I understand the position, my manuscript Amendment is not covered by Amendment No. 13, and that is the reason why I did not seek to amalgamate my Amendment with Amendment No. 13. I am grateful for the support that this Amendment has generated from the various Benches of the Committee, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw it and I shall seek to have further discussions and to raise the matter at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): Before I call Amendment No. 13,I will read paragraph 3 at the top of page 3 on the Marshalled List, as one whole line is missing from the Xeroxed copy.
Paragraph 3 reads :
'" The Secretary of State may make regulations governing the procedure to be followed on a reference to him under this Schedule and

157
such regulations may contain such supplementary and consequential provisions as appear to him to be necessary or expedient."
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 13 :
Page 3, line 9, at end insert—
" ( ) After Schedule 4 to the principal Act there shall be inserted the following Schedule—

SCHEDULE 4A
REFERENCES TO SECRETARY OF STATE REGARDING UNION MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENTS

1. Where a union membership agreement has been made as defined in section 30 of this Act and any independent trade union, being neither a party to the agreement nor specified for the purposes of or in relation to the agreement, claims that it should reason- ably have been so specified, then the independent trade union may refer the matter to the Secretary of State in accordance with the subsequent provisions of this Schedule.

2.Upon a reference to the Secretary of State under the preceding paragraph then—

(a)the union membership agreement shall cease to be effective in relation to any employee who is for the time being in membership of the independent trade union which referred the matter to the Secretary of State until the conclusion of the proceedings on the reference ; and

(b)the Secretary of State may after consulting with the parties thereto vary the terms of the union membership agreement and may also specify for the purposes of or in relation to the agreement the independent trade union who referred the matter to him.

3. The Secretary of State may make regulations governing the procedure to be followed on a reference to him under this Schedule and such regulations may contain such supple- mentary and consequential provisions as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.

4. Regulations made under this Schedule may provide for the Secretary of State to refer the matter in dispute or any part thereof to any person or body appointed under any other enactment dealing with industrial relations whether passed before or after this Act on such terms as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient and before exercising any power in paragraph 2(b) hereof the Secretary of State shall consider the report of the person or body to whom the matter was so referred ." "

The noble Earl said: According to my understanding, this Amendment is parallel to but, nevertheless, distinct from the manuscript Amendment of my noble friend. This Amendment is yet another attempt to provide safeguards and a protective mechanism for groups of workers belonging either to small unions or unions independent of the TUC, or even for members of a large union with a small
158
number of members in an establishment. Like our other Amendments, it provides protection for the potentially weak against the potentially strong or overbearing. This, I regret to say, is not a point of view which has so far found general acceptance among your Lordships, at least on the Government side of the Committee. Nevertheless, once more we intend to try to make the Government think again.
As I have said, this Amendment relates to an independent trade union which is not a party to a union membership agreement. Such a union may well be concerned to protect its interests. Under such an Amendment the union concerned would have the right to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. He then has the absolute discretion to follow, or not to follow, procedures laid down in the later sub-paragraphs of the Amendment, and, I suggest, to refer the matter to the TUC Review Committee when it is set up —always supposing, as the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal suggested, that eventually that body has some form of Parliamentary blessing.
I do not suppose that the Government will seek to deny that eventually some form of legislation, such as we are pro-posing, will have to be set up, with, indeed, some form of protective mechanism. There are some unions outside the TUC which, for one reason or another, have been either denied membership or have never sought it. In that case, it may not be possible, or even desirable, to deal with the matter internally, as it were. I am sure that noble Lords opposite accept that there are some unions not affiliated to the TUC who are perfectly respectable in this sense, and who do a perfectly reasonable job for their members. Taking the matter briefly, I suggest the advantages of this Amendment are twofold. First, the Amendment pro-vides a solution to those aggrieved, or merely fearful, who wish to resolve what may be a dispute without having to resort to industrial action. Secondly, the Amendment provides a means which does not entail recourse either to the courts, or to those grasping lawyers whom noble Lords opposite so despise.
Before I sit down, there is one matter that I feel will probably be raised, and at this time I should like to answer it.

159
It may be said that the Bill before your Lordships' Committee merely seeks to restore the situation as it applies to closed shops to what I might call the " pre-1971 era ". I suggest that is a perfectly accept-able point of view, even if one may not agree with it. Equally, I would suggest that in fact the position of the trade unions relative to the pre-1971 era is one of infinitely greater strength, as was said yesterday by many noble Lords. It is, perhaps, the reason why those of us on this side of your Lordships' Committee are nervous for the future, and I am not talking about Communists or anything like that at this juncture. Quite obviously, at least to us, the trade union movement is infinitely stronger than it was even five years ago. So, in my submission, the necessity for such an Amendment as this becomes firm. If I may put it this way, to us at least the friendly and rather cosy cart horse of the Low cartoon, representing the trade union move-ment, has suddenly become, to use a racing term, a " flyer"; but while it is a " flyer ", it is of uncertain temperament and, for the sake of all our safety, of necessity requires certain safeguards. I beg to move.
3.36 p.m.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: I find it passing strange to hear recommendations from the Opposition Benches that there shall be a proliferation of trade unions, when over the years they have emphasised the advisability of an industrial trade union in each industry. We in the trade union movement have been dealing with this almost insoluble problem in the best way we could, by getting agreement between the different unions in each industry, and, so far as possible, getting amalgamations between the different unions in each industry in order to get an industrial union. Where it has not been possible to do that, the different unions have set up committees where the inter-union problems are mostly solved without any reference at all to the employers. We take the onus off the employers so that we might get one voice from the trade unions that the employers could understand, one voice instead of a Tower of Babel, as has so often happened.
160
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, yesterday spoke about infiltration into the trade unions by subversive bodies. I do not treat these subversive bodies lightly as some, even on my own side, attempt to do. I treat them with great seriousness. They are very wise and very well-advised. If we have legislation which not only allows but encourages proliferation of trade unions within one industry, the prospect of the subversive bodies setting up unions for the purpose of causing further disruption is inevitable. I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed from the Opposition Benches. If they are to press it in such a way, it will only add to the chaos that they profess to want to remove.
On a previous Amendment we have discussed smaller unions and have talked about professional engineers. Before dealing further with that, I want to know just what is a professional engineer. Is he a man who has taken a degree in a university? Is he a man who has taken his apprenticeship and gone on to acquire further qualifications between the university degree and the practical qualifications he already has? If we talk about " professional engineers", what do we mean? I ask that question deliberately, because it will need a week of discussion to define. At the end of that discussion, I can promise your Lordships that the phrase will be incapable of definition.
These matters are discussed within the trade union movement. We must give the trade union movement the responsibility for which it is asking if we are to solve the problems of multiple trade unions inside industry. I hope that, having listened to what I have said, noble Lords opposite will do what they are professing to do; that is, trying to make easier the job of the responsible trade unionists. Imposing such legislation as this will make the job not only difficult, but impossible. We come back to the old saying, " Why make things difficult if you can make them impossible? " That is what this Amendment will inevitably do.
Viscount MONCK: I must be feeling very bold today to venture to speak against my very old friend who has just sat down, who has the same Christian name as myself and who will remain a

161
friend even though I disagree with him. There was a certain amount of criticism yesterday that no employer in industry had spoken in favour of this Bill, and previous Bills were mentioned. I must confess that at the present moment I am merely a consultant, unpaid; but I was an employer in industry for 43 years in commodities ranging from paper to coal. The first thing I did when this Bill was produced was to let my industrial friends see it; this Amendment covers that part of the Bill which they were quite deter-mined was the part that should be covered. Therefore, I very strongly support my noble friend who has moved this Amendment.
3.41 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: May I revert for one moment to what the noble Lord opposite said about the professional engineers. I understand that is a name which has certainly been known about in my part of the world and accepted for a very long time as a trade union within the meaning of the words " trade union ". Even though I have been in another place for very many years and had lots of representations from trade unions of all kinds, the major trade unions, if 1 may put it in that way, have never raised any objection to the existence of the professional engineers. I am quite certain that my noble friend who moved the Amendment which I am now supporting, even though he has withdrawn it, never for one moment took any exception to the professional engineers. The unions never made any representations. The situation was accepted in the industrial world, which is a very large world in the area that I come from. We are not attempting—cer-tanly I am not—to produce a new small union. I should have thought the noble Lord opposite would have been much better able to describe what is recognised as a small trade union, professional engineers; that he would have been much more informed than I of what that union was and what the word " professional" in technical terms means. But we are not asking to increase the number of small unions. All we are saying is that small unions have already been accepted and have worked in a proper trade union manner. They are not professionals like doctors or lawyers, or persons to whom the word " professional " normally applies.
162
I really must assert that this is not an attempt to increase the number of small unions. It has been there, it has been accepted, it has been working within the very big and prestigious industries that we have in the North.
Though I am always ready to hear what the other side has to say, I thought the noble Lord based his speech on an entirely wrong premise, and that is extremely regrettable. I do not know whether he would come and meet the professional engineers in my part of the world. I am sure that if I asked them they would be delighted to explain the full effect of the operation which they cover. I really was very surprised at the attitude the noble Lord took. The professional engineers have been there for years and have been a very responsible body of men working inside the whole industrial scene of the North. I felt I must put this on the Record, because I should hate the professional engineers, who will be reading the debate, to feel that somebody on the opposite side of the Committee has so little knowledge of the body whose services—
Baroness BACON: If I may intervene, perhaps the noble Baroness is not quite aware of the association of my noble friend with the North of England.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: That may well be. I apologise. I wanted to put it absolutely right, that the professional engineers are not a new small union. It is not an attempt on my side of the Committee to increase the small unions in order to try and make it more difficult for the larger unions.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: May I tell the noble Baroness that I took her point a long time ago. I am quite sure she has not got my point. We can both save the time of the Committee if we can meet over tea or something like that and go into the particular problem she has in mind.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I am delighted. I think I am right in saying, as I have been asked by the professional engineers to put their point of view, that they have just as much right to be heard in the Upper House as anybody else. If I am asked to put forward a view with which I am in

163
sympathy, or even sometimes if I am in disagreement, I put it forward. I think perhaps I will not continue, but I was utterly surprised at the basis of the arguments which were put forward by the noble Lord. I hope that the next time he speaks he will discover something different so that we may perhaps look at another side.
Lord SHEPHERD: I wonder whether my noble friend would allow me to say that I think it might help to cool the atmosphere a little if I were to move that the House be resumed in order that a Statement may be made.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

DIRECT-GRANT SCHOOLS
3.48 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Crowther-Hunt): My Lords, with permission, I will now repeat a Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:
" The Government have decided that the time has come to implement the pledge in the Labour Party Election Manifesto to stop the present system of direct grant schools. My right honour-able and learned friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are making this Statement to indicate the action we propose to take.
" Grants to schools which are un-willing to enter the maintained school system or which it is not practicable to absorb into the system will be phased out, starting in September 1976. Arrangements to safeguard the interests of pupils already in the schools will be made. Meanwhile, I do not propose to make any change in the level of grant.
" This decision follows necessarily from the Government's commitment to end all forms of selection for secondary education. The direct grant schools have made an important contribution to the national system of secondary education while that was organised on selective lines, and some of them pro-
164
vided places needed by the local education authorities. I hope that as many of them as possible will accept that they can best continue to serve the public by making the adjustments necessary to become an integral part of the local system of comprehensive education as maintained schools. I hope also that local education authorities will recognise the advantages of such a solution and will do all they can to facilitate the transition for schools which are willing to make it.
" As a first step we will discuss the future arrangements in greater detail with the representatives of the direct grant schools and of the local education authorities. In particular we shall discuss, in relation to schools willing to become maintained, the problems of capital debt and sub-standard buildings; matters arising from the need to protect the salary and conditions of service of existing staff; and any special issues that might arise because of the existence of a boarding element at some of the schools. We shall also clarify with them the procedure for phasing out the grants and related features of the present system.
" Subsequently the two Departments will get in touch with individual schools, and their local education authorities, to enable decisions to be reached about their future as soon as possible. I believe that it would be generally agreed that from the point of view of all concerned it is now desirable to move as speedily as possible to avoid a protracted period of uncertainty. My aim will be to help the schools reach a decision in principle by the end of the summer term."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, while your Lordships will doubtless wish me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, for repeating that Statement, I do not think I can do so with any genuine warmth. Indeed I doubt whether noble Lords oppo-site are aware of quite the level of indignation that it will arouse. We are against it in principle because it enshrines a policy which denies freedom of choice of school to yet more parents and there are after all (even noble Lords opposite will admit) some bad maintained schools, and if they

165
are to have catchment areas from which there is no escape other than into the private sector some parents will have children trapped in schools in which they are to be bullied or misled.
It is a feature of this policy that it reduces parental choice and thereby reduces parental involvement in the education process. Secondly, it proposes to destroy the last remaining institutional teaching links between the maintained and the independent systems. It is a feature of this policy that it sets the seal of finality upon the Socialist commitment to abolish both choice and independency in education, and, further, it widens the gap between the less well-off and those coming from more fortunate homes. Further-more, it denies access to schools with high academic traditions to those who otherwise could not afford it, schools in which those children would strive for new goals and reach them, and schools in which a link would be formed with the children of homes of a different sort.
May I remind the noble Lord of what he said in this Chamber on the 31st October?
" It is in the schools that disadvantaged children can be introduced to the possibility of new goals of achievement, and we must be most careful not to perpetuate, still worse to widen, the gap which separates them from those coming from more fortunate homes."— [Official Report, c. 267.]
Therefore if the schools are to disappear they will be disadvantaged and if they are to be changed then the avenues of progress for those children will be diverted and may be closed. Finally, on general principles, it suspends the shadow of the axe over the last remaining source of reason-ably-priced boarding accommodation open to parents of no great wealth who are forced to travel and spend a long time away from home.
That is the general case against this policy but this Statement has two further features to which we cannot agree. The first is that, whereas the Statement says that its aim is to safeguard the interests of pupils already in the schools, in almost the same breath it says that there is no intention to increase the capitation grant, and in a time of galloping inflation freezing of a capitation grant is a sentence to financial starvation. Finally, the last paragraph says that it is thought that we should all agree that we should make progress
166
as fast as possible to this end. My Lords, let us be very wary of haste. I have taught in one of these schools and how it is possible for headmasters to arrive at a reasonable decision on a subject of such complexity and importance as this by the end of this summer term I simply cannot understand.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, on behalf of my Party, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that Statement and to welcome the general decision. We have long realised that, although there may be sentimental and well-deserved regrets about this matter in certain areas, nevertheless one cannot have a fully comprehensive system without phasing out direct grants. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I am appalled at the last paragraph and the suggestion that decisions about the future of these schools should be made by the end of the summer term. I wish to ask the Government whether they will reconsider this matter. Of course it is essential that people should not be left in uncertainty. By this decision which has been made by the Government uncertainty is really indign as to the general future. But for schools to choose how best they may fit into the comprehensive system, or whether they should go independent, must take far longer than six months. This is a hopelessly ridiculous period. I hope that the Government will not be moved by unworthy political motives in the feeling that they must unscramble these eggs before another Government can get in to scramble them again; to do something which would be against the best interests of schools. This is a worthwhile step, but it must not be done at the expense of the individual schools.
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I would not be expected to reply in detail to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, particularly since there was not actually a question within the framework of his remarks. However, 1 would make the point that I recognise naturally the indignation which the noble Lord and his colleagues feel at the ending of another area of privilege in our national life. I am grateful also to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I would merely emphasise that the end of the Statement

167
made by my right honourable friend in another place was intended to help schools reach a decision in principle by the end of the summer term, but obviously there was a certain amount of lee-way within that direction because discussions are under way with that objec-tive in view. I would stress that the whole concept of phasing out direct grant schools is one which will clearly take a period of years and this is in fact envisaged in the Statement.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Statement he has made is long overdue and that it puts into operation one of the chief recommendations of the Second Report of the Public Schools Commission which re-ported prior to 1970? Is he further aware that, while the noble Lord opposite has talked about freedom of choice, there never has been freedom of choice for the majority of parents of children of this country? Is he further aware that it is impossible to have a system of comprehensive education and to bring an end to the 11-plus examination at the same time as local authorities would be expected to have a super 11-plus for entry to the direct grant schools?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I am grateful for the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon. I should like to assure her that we are all aware of all the points which she has so forcefully made.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that some of us at least who favour the comprehensive idea, and the notable experiments which have been made in comprehensive education in this country, will yet be saddened by the precipitancy of the policy which he has just announced? Speaking as one who has spent his life in education, I detest the 11-plus system. I am enthusiastic about the idea of comprehensive education, but I am not enthusiastic about the proposal to steamroller out ancient education institutions which have given educational opportunity to many people of humble extraction, and the maintenance of whose tradition is a matter of importance while we experiment with other ideas. If, as I
168
believe, the comprehensive idea has much to recommend it and may well be the idea of the future, should not those who believe in it have sufficient courage to allow it to carry on side by side with old and tried institutions before obliterating excellence which we know already to exist?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I have noted what the noble Lord has said, but I would emphasise that this is no precipitate announcement. This has been a matter of public discussion for a considerable time now and, though there have been divergent views which I recognise, this cannot be said to be a precipitate decision when a lot of people will regard it as being very over-due.
Lord JAMES of RUSHOLME: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is really aware of the sorrow that springs neither from sentiment nor from love of privilege with which this final death sentence is greeted by a lot of people who have given the best of their lives to the English educational system? Does the noble Lord realise that this is not because we like privilege, but because we see this as forcing into an unwilling independence some of the best schools in England, schools that have hitherto been able to open the doors of opportunity to able boys from poor, working-class homes, as I have in my own life seen happen to hundreds of boys? I see the school that I once served being forced into an unwilling independence which will close those doors of opportunity to precisely the boys whom I went to Manchester to serve.
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I recognise that a number of people will regret the decision. Equally, however, I recognise that a very large number of people will applaud it.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: But, my Lords, is not the difference that only dedicated members of the Labour Party support this, and that every other decent element in the community detests it?
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, while deploring the Statement, may I ask three questions? First, will time be given to debate the Statement; secondly, does

169
the Statement apply to Scotland ; thirdly, will legislation be required to implement the provisions?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if I may reply to the noble Lord in regard to the matter of a debate, it seems very clear that this is a subject which we should debate. I shall certainly see, through the usual channels, that the first opportunity is provided for this subject to be debated. With regard to the question of legislation, my understanding is that legislation will not be required. If I am wrong, my noble friend can correct me and inform your Lordships, but I believe that I am right. I wonder whether, on the understanding that a debate will be arranged at an early date—
Several Noble Lords: Scotland!
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend says he will write to the noble Lord on this point.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Hughes): My Lords, a separate Statement is being made in another place about the Scottish position and I was informed that, through the usual channels, the other side indicated that it did not wish this Statement to be repeated here.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if that is so, could the Statement at least be reproduced in Hansard tomorrow, if there is a Hansard?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will so arrange it.
Following is the Statement referred to :
"With permission I should like to make a statement about my proposals for the future of the grant to the grant-aided secondary schools in Scotland.
"I have decided that in 1975–76 the grant should be of the same amount as for 1974–75, subject, as has always been the case, to limitation to the actual amount of deficit in the case of any particular school. Phasing out will begin in 1976–77 and will extend over a period to be decided in the light of the circumstances revealed by discussion between my Department and the schools and the education authorities concerned.
"The decision to phase grant out represents the implementation of long standing Government policy. By delaying phasing out until the Beginning of the 1976–77 school session we are providing ample opportunity for discussion with the managers of the schools and with the education authorities concerned on the most appropriate arrangements to be made for the future.
170
" Discussions will be put in hand immediately. I expect that it will be necessary for separate meetings to take place with individual schools or groups of schools and that meetings with the schools will precede meetings with individual education authorities. My hope is that it will be found possible for the schools to be fully integrated in the public system of education as comprehensive schools but I have not made up my mind in advance on what the best arrangements might be."

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
4.5 p.m.
House again in Committee on Amendment No. 13.
Viscount HANWORTH: I am a member of two institutions and one institute and I can say that, in the main, professional engineers have never been very keen on forming themselves into a union of any sort. However, the question has arisen as to whether they can get what they want without that necessity. The Council of Engineering Institutes says the following:
" It is a non-political body and we are not anxious to become involved in any political issue relating to the rights of trade unions or otherwise. The Chartered Institutions in membership of the Council, however, are fully alive to the dangers which might ensue if the obligation of trade union membership were on occasion to be found in conflict with an individual chartered engineer's obligations under his code of professional conduct, and in particular his obligations at all times to safe-guard public health and safety."
The question was raised as to how one was to make a division here. I think myself that if one were to take a chartered engineer as being the criterion, though that would not cover the whole of the profession, it would go a very long way towards establishing what is needed and I believe that it would in any case be true that those institutions which do not have professional status would still benefit to some extent in difficult situations from what has been done for the chartered engineer. May I therefore suggest that there is no great problem in making the definition.
However, I shall not speak to the Amendment except to say that I think it could not be improved. What I want to get across to your Lordships is the object of the exercise, which is not to form a union unless it is necessary for a

171
particular purpose—and I very much doubt whether it really is necessary. There are other possible solutions, and I would earnestly ask those on the other side of the Committee to recognise that there is a problem here and that, if the Amendment is not carried, they should direct their minds to seeing how this important requirement could be met.
Let us not forget that arrangements such as the closed shop—a point upon which I make no comment either way— make life a great deal more difficult for the professional engineer. I would also maintain that the world would be a very much worse place if those engineers were not able to implement their codes of conduct, which are very high. In fact, I do not think that there is very much difference between an engineer and a doctor, who also has his ethics. The point about the professional engineer, however, is that he comes much closer to industry and, whether he likes it or not, the professional engineer will inevitably have some contact with any industrial trouble which may occur. It will inevitably affect professional engineers much more closely than other professions, such as doctors, solicitors and so on. The need is there and I hope that those trade union members who speak on this Amendment will recognise that need, though I realise that to provide for it may have certain inconveniences from their point of view.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: I confess that yesterday I had some doubts on the relation of the individual to his union and on Government policy on that point, but I have no doubts what-ever in supporting my noble friend Lord Douglass in resisting the Amendment. Either one has a union membership agree-ment, or one does not. If one has a union membership agreement, one great advantage is that it removes all the complications of an employer having to conduct separate collective bargaining with a large number of unions, some of which may have very small numbers of members. For that reason, I strongly support my noble friend.
Lord POPPLEWELL: I should like the Committee to become realists in connection with this matter. Having listened to the discussion, I wonder how many of the speeches made from the other side are founded on the realities of life in
172
industry. For quite a long time, we have heard how this country has been bedevilled by small unions, strikes and small groups. It has been pointed out that in Germany and elsewhere there has been less industrial trouble, because of their method of organisation. We have been told that they have been given an advantage as competitors in selling their products in the markets of the world. Yet we repeatedly get special appeals on behalf of small groups of people who feel that they should be given professional status.
I spent many years in the area which the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, represented in the other place. I think she will agree that this demand for professional status is being made by only a small body of men, and that demands of this type are made regularly in industry. Suddenly people feel that because their work contains a certain additional responsibility that should entitle them to professional status. Those of your Lordships who have been engaged in trade union activities know only too well how frequently requests are made for people to be classed as professionals.
My noble friend Lord Douglass of Cleveland, a practical man, pointed out exactly the sort of trouble noble Lords opposite are asking for if they are sincere about this Amendment. We have just witnessed how members of the union representing railway signalmen have been involved in sporadic strikes, day by day, week by week, and we all condemn that sort of thing. But despite that, we have noble Lords opposite seeking the establishment of even more small organisations and desiring to give them additional power to do what some have described as holding the nation to ransom. It seems that, with one exception, the industrialists have been silent on the Benches opposite, yet I am sure that they appreciate how difficult it is to enter into negotiations when one is dealing with a plethora of small unions. In that situation, as soon as one deals with one, there is an endless chain of differentials to be overcome. With a larger organisation, it has been found possible time and time again to deal with differentials and, at the same time to keep the wheels of industry turning.
I ask your Lordships to be sensible about this matter and not to adopt a

173
theoretical approach. It is all very well to talk about protecting the small man, the individual, but such arguments do not have the same meaning as they did 50 years ago. We are living in a completely different age and many sophisticated developments have taken place on both sides of industry, and both sides have established their own case law, so to speak. If we go along with the type of nonsense we have heard today, and have a proliferation of small unions, because of the desire of some noble Lords to protect the individual, we will be faced with additional problems. There will be more head-aches for management and for the trade unions, which will lead to endless arguments and disputes instead of enabling us to get on with the job and prevent time being lost.
Over the years the unions have realised this and, despite what was said last night by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, who made a brief appearance and attacked the Bridlington Agreement, the unions have shown how beneficial it is to industry as a whole to have collective bargaining. I hope that noble Lords who do not have practical experience of these issues will drop the sort of arguments they have been using and will let those who have been dealing with the developments on both sides of industry get on with the job.
I remind noble Lords opposite that they had their chance when they were in Government. They put through industrial relations legislation which brought the nation to a standstill, they introduced the three-day working week and they lowered morale in industry. I am tempted to say that they caused hatred between master and man, but I would not go quite so far. Nevertheless, they created a difficult road for us to tread and created many problems between master and man when they were in Office. They should know by now how many of their observations lack wisdom. I appeal to them to let us get on in a way that will help industry and the nation to produce the goods which will give us our fair share of world markets, and lift us higher up the world production ladder.
4.18 p.m.
Lord SLATER: I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Popplewell, who
174
made some cogent observations about this Amendment. The greater part of the debate has been about the engineering sector of industry and chief engineers in particular. Indeed, it seems that many contributions have been aimed primarily at one class of engineer. The noble Baroness, Lady Ward of New-castle—
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: North Tyneside, please.
Lord SLATER: I apologise to the noble Baroness. I should have known because we served together for many years in another place. She talked about representing engineers who had asked her to put forward their grievances. I remind the noble Baroness that there are many classes of engineer and I have in mind the mining engineer, who has so far not been mentioned. I knew one well. He had taken a degree, his B.Sc. in mining. I worked in the pits for 30 years and I came to know Newcastle and the area which the noble Baroness represented in another place very well. The man I speak of became the manager of the colliery for which I worked. And what about all the other engineers, including those who work for the highway departments of county authorities? I remember a county surveyor in the engineering sector of one authority who told me that his father had spent a tremendous amount of money to enable him to qualify for that type of employment. I advise noble Lords opposite to be very careful when speaking about setting up new unions.
One has had experience where individuals were members of two unions and on one occasion they went before a local authority body, of which I was a member, and put forward their case on behalf of the chief officials and others for an increase in salaries and wages. We turned them down, and we immediately found to our amazement that they were members not only of the General and Municipal Workers' Union, in the first case, but they were also members of NALGO; NALGO put forward the same case as the General and Municipal Workers' Union had on behalf of those people, and we turned that down as well.
Guidance and advice have emanated— in this respect the noble Baroness, Lady

175
Wootton of Abinger, referred to my noble friend Lord Douglass of Cleveland—in regard to how one determines what is an engineer. You will find that engineering covers a very wide field. This was brought out by the noble Lord from the Cross-Benches. He talked about being attached to forms of association. This is true. We had forms of association in the previous Ministry that I was in; forms of association of up to about 180 members of executive status. The same applies with engineers from various trades and sectors in industry in this country. We ought not to overstate it when we talk about the engineering sector. In many sectors practical experience is the greatest factor one can have, apart from letters after one's name.
On one occasion, we desired to raise from the ranks in a county authority the deputy county surveyor. But, because he did not have letters after his name, and was not attached to, or had not become a member of, an association—the noble Lord who spoke from the Cross-Benches referred to that—the Minister of Transport at that time was not prepared to accept the nomination which we had put forward for this man to take over duties as the chief articled surveyor for the county authority. This kind of thing can happen. Therefore, I sincerely hope that, following the advice, which is most tangible and most effective, from my noble friend Lord Douglass of Cleveland on this matter—which covers, I repeat, a very wide field—we do not fall for this sop; because we would be setting up these little sectors of private, small unions which would have no powers whatever in looking after themselves. It would be left to God and good neighbours to get them out of the valley of despondency into which they would fall because of the action taken.
4.24 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: I do not want to intervene for long, but I wish to try to persuade the Government and their supporters that there are two serious interrelated problems here. One is the relation of the big union to the small union, and I want to say a word about that. The other is the relation of a union to a professional association. The problems are different, but they are both

176
raised by the subject matter of this Amendment. I wish that I could persuade the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleve-land, with whom I have had long and friendly relations dating back for certainly more than 15 years, that it is no part of the philosophy either of my Party, or of this Amendment, to encourage small or splinter unions; it really is not. On the contrary, if I might describe myself as a typical Establishment figure, I have always been in favour of large unions; I have always been against small or splinter unions.
All I need to say to the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, is that I do not share the assumption which appears to be universal on the Benches opposite that because a union or an association is small it does not have rights. It does have rights, and to deny them is always a mistake, because in the end that will bring trouble for oneself. Secondly, because one disapproves of something—in this case I share the preconceptions of the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland—it does not mean that one has to destroy it. There are things which one disapproves of which, on the whole, one would protect. That is all I want to say at the moment about small unions.
However, I want to say to him some-thing about professional associations. I probably have a good deal of experience of professional associations, and particularly of the engineering professional associations. Curiously enough, I am a member of almost every one of the chartered engineering associations, having honorary fellowships. The fact of the matter is that the relationship between the union, in the ordinary sense of the word, and the professional association is a matter of increasing importance which cannot be swept aside simply by saying that the professional association has no rights. Whether it is the doctors in the Health Service, or chartered engineers in industry, or those acting as consultants or whether it is the various and increasing number of professional associations, all of these simply cannot be swept aside by people who have experience of ordinary trade unions saying that these groups have no rights. They have rights and the danger of a clash between them and the unions is increasing when there is the kind of

177
assumption which has been coming from the Benches opposite.
The noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, thought that it was difficult to define a professional engineer. The noble Lord, Lord Slater, said, quite rightly ,that the word "engineer" has been used to cover everyone from the driver of a motor car—who was always called the "engineer" when I was a boy —to the man who designed Waterloo Bridge. But, in point of fact, I do not believe that the difficulty exists. The professional institutions—the civil, the municipal, the chemical, the structural, the mechanical and the electrical engineers —are perfectly well defined institutions. They have a high professional qualification, which may or may not include a university or polytechnic degree or diploma; but they have very high professional qualifications and they contain quite a different kind of person from the kind of person who would wish to join the AEU, for instance, on the shop floor. They must be allowed to continue to exist and to have their rights.
The noble Lord opposite, who claims to have great practical experience in his own field—and I am absolutely sure that it is a perfectly sound claim—does not, I think, appreciate what my noble friend said in introducing the Amendment. My noble friend made it clear that there are two discretions in the Amendment expressly designed to avoid the dangers which the noble Lord apparently expected. The first is that the Secretary of State has a discretion whether or not to refer the matter at all. He can turn it down flat and I have no doubt that a Secretary of State, properly advised —as a Secretary of State nearly always is—by professional civil servants, would turn down flat any of the frivolous or undesirable objections which come from splinter groups simply designed to make it difficult for a more responsible or serious-minded union.
I say at once, in passing, that I fully accept what the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, recently said about the degree of responsibility which he has devoted to the problem of containing subversive or irresponsible elements in his own field. But a Secretary of State need not refer the matter at all, and if he does refer it, he can refer it to the machinery set up by the TUC.

178
That is designed to cover the kind of problems which the noble Lord has in mind, especially those between the large unions and the small unions. One can-not simply say that a small union has no rights, and one cannot simply say that because a body is not approved of by oneself, it does not have a right to exist. But as regards the problem between the trade unions, properly so called, and the professional associations, I want to urge, with the full power that I can possess, that just as noble Lords opposite have warned us to be very careful about the way we handle organised labour at that level, I warn them to be very careful indeed before they interfere with the independence of the professions; whether it be the medical profession, the engineering profession or the legal profession, they have their rights and standards and their high qualifications. To declare war on them either by inadvertence, as I suspect, or by intention would be to precipitate a class war in this country.
4.30 p.m.
Lord COOPER of STOCKTON HEATH: Following the noble and learned Lord on this very important issue that he has put forward, that they had no rights, I must say that this is not correct at all. In the trade union movement as it is today, there are trade unions for manual workers and for white-collar workers, and there are appropriate trade unions available for professional people. What has happened is that the professional people, who have had their organisations for years and who have done a wonderful job of work in building up the prestige of the professions, an laying down rules of conduct, and so on, are now wondering whether they should switch from their traditional job of being a professional organisation and take upon themselves the function of a trade union.
In local government, in particular, we have had the problem of the professional engineers. NALGO is a body which can cater for them and, as a matter of fact, in the device mentioned, duplication of membership, many of these professional engineers are trying it both ways. They are members of their own professional body and are also members of appropriate trade unions. It is not the fact at all that they are denied rights.

179
The professional engineers, to my knowledge, have presesd for inclusion in the negotiating machinery; they have been turned down by the trade union side on the ground that there already exists an appropriate body catering for them. Let us take local government agreements. They are very involved; but nevertheless they cater for the professional people all the way to the top. There is an agreement to cover every employed person in local government. The professional people are included among them. They have their own agreement and their own negotiating body within the overall negotiating body in local government. It is wrong to say that they have no rights. Nobody is depriving them of rights. What they are saying is that they now want to take upon themselves a job of work that has been done by the white-collar unions for a very long time.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTER-HILL: I hesitate to take part in a debate which obviously has Party political connotations. I have always sought to avoid taking any part in Party political disputes, but I have spent my life trying to ensure that any Bill, Regulation or other document which emerged made administrative sense. I am advised that, so far as local government is concerned, unless there is an Amendment of this kind the Bill will create administrative chaos. This is the considered view not of one but of all the chief officers' associations: the Association of Chief Executives, the Association of Financial Officers and the Society of Education Officers, with which I am particularly concerned. The reason is obvious. I have no experience of industry, but I have experience of local government in which I have worked all my life. The chief officers are a part of management. This is a fundamental fact which has to be accepted. They sit on the management side in negotiations. I negotiated teachers' salaries for 30 years. If the teachers had called a strike the idea that I had either to go on strike or be dismissed without compensation would have seemed to me to be nonsense. This is what can hapen under the Bill unless some provision is made.
I am no legal expert; I am not pre-pared to say that this Amendment is the

180
right answer. I would not express a view on that. I want to make clear what can happen, as I am advised. The principal white-collar union in local government is NALGO. NALGO in any authority may well create a closed shop. The noble Lord may assure me that no employer would allow a closed shop which would create difficulty. I have not as much confidence in every local authority as to assume this could not happen; it could happen. The chief executive officer, the chief officer of the authority, is the man on whom management absolutely depends. The relationship between the chief officer and his chairman is the same as that between the Permanent Secretary and his Minister.
If the chief officers did not go on strike, what could happen? They could be expelled by NALGO; and if they were so expelled they could be dismissed with-out any kind of compensation. If they went on strike, what would they be doing? First, they would be denying the code of conduct of their own professional association; and, secondly, they would, in my opinion, be utterly guilty of dereliction of duty to the local authority and to the public, whom they serve. I am no expert in legal matters. Whether this Amendment provides the right answer I do not know. What I am certain about is that the Bill must make provision which secures that chief officers in local authorities are not put in what would be a totally untenable position. Only in that way could we avoid a situation which could be utterly disruptive of local government. I hope the Government will find the answer to what I believe is a very real problem.
The Earl of ARRAN: May I make it clear that what we have been talking about for the last hour, although no names have been mentioned so far, is the dispute between the NUJ and the IOJ? I happen to belong to the IOJ, which is a substantial organisation, and which the noble Lord insulted when he said it was —what did he say?—an organisation which did not exist at all. He knows as well as I know that it is a very powerful, influential, authoritative and experienced organisation. To say that the NUJ should take it over, which is what he has said by implication, is insulting.
Lord DOUGLAS of CLEVELAND: May I express my appreciation to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, for what he said about our association over the years. When he was Minister for Science I had to meet him as an official from the General Council. I always got a sympathetic hearing and very often came away a better educated man than I was before meeting him. I say that sincerely; and I am sincere now because we are dealing with issues which have been thrown into the middle of politics and where opposition rather than co-operation appears to be the order of the day. I am trying to solve those problems and to prevent us from treading more difficult paths than those which exist now. When the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches said that he accepted the definition of chartered engineer, I appreciated his effort to meet this point. I take his point. It is a problem. It is a problem when you have managers and workmen in the one industry who may belong to the one union. No solution has yet been found to that. The noble Lord on the Cross-Benches spoke about the local government problem. I do not know the details; I am no expert on it, but I know that it exists. It seems to me that we here all know that the problem exists and we are trespassing on the next Amendment that my noble friend Lord, Lord Houghton, is to deal with.
I want the Opposition to accept that when you have a problem of this character, if you can get a code of practice into operation you are on the way to a solution. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, put forward the idea of a code of practice in the 1971 Act. I did not care very much for it because I felt at that time that it was merely stating some-thing that was understood by everybody. Over the last four years my experience has taught me the value of that, because it is stating something which is very rarely understood by anyone, and if the debate this afternoon has shown any-thing it has shown a number of people who are groping towards a solution, each with his own preconceived ideas of what that solution should be, and yet having doubts.
I am speaking partly to the next Amendment we are to deal with, and it refers to the newspaper industry. I want to suggest that the legislation of 1971 led

182
to more ills than it cured, and the legislation of 1974 did not relieve the situation. It did not do so because it attempted to deal by precise legislation with matters which were incapable of being so dealt with, however good the intention—and I believe the intention was good from either side. I pay the Opposition the tribute of believing that they were sincere when they put forward this legislative programme. I think they must have learned that it does not solve the problems involved. When I sat on the arbitration court arising from that legislation, dealing with unfair practices and other things inside industry, I was astonished by the amount of ignorance shown on the part of both employers and employees as to the rights under existing legislation. They had to be helped tremendously by the chairman, a lawyer, to understand just what their situation was. The number of employers who had no idea of what was a sensible code of practice inside an industry was legion. Many of them went away much wiser men than when they came to that arbitration court because they learned something from the Chair-man of what good industrial relations practice was thoughout all industry and throughout the country. I am putting forward the plea today that we should not attempt to solve these problems by legislation which may contain unforeseen mistakes. Not only do they cause troubles in the industry but they give hostages to fortune so far as the subversive elements inside industry are concerned.
I want us to approach all these problems from the point of view of the "child" of the Conservative Party, when in power, when it established a code of practice. I want us to accept the word of the present Secretary of State who has said a code of practice should be set up, and it is set out plainly in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. But behind the code of practice the legislation shall still exist. There shall be nothing to take away the right of the individual to go to legislation if the code of practice breaks down. Let me tell the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that nobody has anything over me on the rights of the individual! My trade unionism sprang from non-conformism, when I listened to preachers in the pulpit talking of the evils of the day and what should be done about them. At the centre of that was the

183
rights of the individual, which, let me say, I will defend to the death anywhere for or against any Party in this House. But the rights of the individual will be jeopardised by the legislation which the Opposition are trying to introduce on this occasion. They would not be jeopardised if we had a code of practice as a means of approaching the problems; and if that code is fully investigated all the problems which have been discussed this afternoon can be thoroughly sifted.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hail-sham, said he had no difficulty in defining the professions. I sat on the Monopolies Commission when we had a remit to examine the professions; but we have never yet really discovered what the professions are. The evidence of the noble and learned Lord would have been very welcome to the Monopolies Commission because I do not think they have yet discovered how to define a profession. But there is a profession, there are qualifications and there are different grades to be dealt with. There are types of trade unionism which have to be adapted to different circumstances, and none of us knows all the answers.
If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, when he comes forward with his Amendments, there is only one sensible solution to these problems if we are to get the co-operation here that we need in industry. If there is no co-operation from your Lordships you will never inculcate it into industry. It will have to get co-operation independently of your Lord-ships, if your Lordships cannot give it. You are discussing the power that you have—and you have the power, because there is so much governmental interfer-ence in industry today that the power is bound to lie with you. So therefore let us approach this in a sensible manner. Let us have the code of practice so that all the different experts in industry on both sides of the table can find out exactly what the problem is and what the solution is, with the safeguard behind it that if the code of practice proves to be no solution the legislation still remains to give the noble and learned Lord what he rightly wants: the right of the small organisation and the small individual to be recognised.
The Earl of COURTOWN: I have tried to intervene once or twice already this afternoon, because I felt that some-

184
one who had had experience of industry should also speak from this side. I would inform the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, that I myself have spent 43 years in industry, right from the shop floor upwards. I wish to support this Amendment. I do not want to delay the Committee, because we have had a long debate about this Amendment; but I should like to emphasise that with the growth of the white collar unions it has become increasingly evident that many managers and specialists, if they are to belong to a union, wish to join a union which is prepared to negotiate on behalf of its specialists. Doctors, scientists of different types, lawyers, accountants and many others belong to this category. I know, too, that senior officers in local government are extremely worried about this situation, as are others in industry. There was an article in the Guardian on 7th March, last Friday, which pointed out very clearly the difficulty in which senior officers in local government might find themselves as a result of this situation.
I should also like to point out that what this Amendment does is not really very earth-shaking. Perhaps I may quote from the principal Act of 1974:
"… has the effect of requiring the terms and conditions of employment of every employee of that class to include a condition that he must be or become a member of the union or one of the unions which is or are parties to the agreement or arrangement, or of an-other appropriate independent trade union."
The Bill before us amends this to be "another specified trade union", which presumably means that the Government intend that certain professional associations, specialist associations or specialist unions of one sort or another may be specified in the union membership agreement made. It seems to me that all this Amendment does is to provide for a special case, if a group of people—per-haps quite a small group of people, or it may be only one person—think that their specialism or position as managers is so different from that of other employees in that particular establishment, if necessary, to be ordered by the Secretary of State. It allows an appeal against the agreement which has been made between the employer and the main union. It does not seem to me that that will mean that you are going to encourage all kinds of breakaway unions of the

185
sort suggested by some noble Lords opposite; and I wish strongly to support this Amendment.
Lord HILL of LUTON: May I refer briefly to a set of circumstances which has arisen in the past and the solution to which will have to be found either in a code of practice or in an Amendment to the Bill. It is that in which the trade union is the minority body and the professional association the majority body. It may be thought immediately that no question of a closed shop could arise because it is hardly likely to be agreed by the employing body with a union which is so obviously a minority union. But it has arisen by the action of the employing body. It was 25 years ago when the Willesden Borough Council decided to impose a closed shop. The deputy matron of the Willesden maternity hospital declined to join a union. She was, as she said, a member of the Royal College of Nursing, the representative body of nurses, and would not join a union. She was sacked from her post. I am not suggesting that this situation has often arisen, but I am saying that in looking at the problem of the professions and the trade unions it is essential to examine the position where the trade union is in a minority and the professional body is in the majority. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, would not want the trade union treated as some have suggested that minority unions should be treated. It is a problem, and I hope that in searching for a solution that set of circumstances will be borne in mind.
4.53 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: In my view, most of the speeches in this discussion have been based on a misunderstanding. It is largely a matter of definition. In the Amendment is included the term "independent trade union". What is an independent trade union? If by that term is meant a professional organisation, or semi or quasi professional organisation, that is understandable. When Members of your Lordships' Committee have spoken as if we are involved in some great problem, I have wondered about it. Let me offer an illustration. Take the mining industry. In that industry we have the Mineworkers' union which consists of men who work at the coal face, men who

186
work underground, and men who work on the surface. Among the men who work underground are those who do not belong to the mineworkers' union but to the electricians' union, the engineers' union or the carpenters' union, and so on. They work together, but when negotiations take place they often negotiate separately because conditions vary. This is clearly understood. But in addition to those I have mentioned are those who may be described as semi-professional; that is to say, under-managers, mine managers, mining engineers, and I believe even architects are involved—I use the term employed by the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches. There is no difficulty at all. Indeed, there is no conflict whatever.
As to the instance furnished by the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches of what happens in local government, I am surprised that that is a problem at all. Where I have been involved, if a local authority employs, in addition to dust-men, men who are engaged in cleaning the streets and men engaged in sewage disposal, I have found that most of them belong to the union of which my noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath was for many years the general secretary. But there are many employees associated with local government who do not belong to what is—I hesitate to use the defini-tion—a normal trade union; they belong to professional or semi-professional organisations. They are architects, teachers and the like. I see that the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches assents to what I have just said. Therefore, there is no real problem and it is a matter of definition.
It may well be that in order to clarify the situation in terms of the provisions of this Bill the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Douglass of Cleveland is appropriate. At the same time, I am bound to say that I should like to see the terms of the code of practice. A great deal would depend on that. If there is to be a code of practice which will be fruitful, effective and operative, not one that creates more trouble, it must be negotiated; and that will take time. I do not believe it is possible to undertake a task of that kind voluntarily. It may require to be undertaken by the Secretary of State—but, of course, as a result of consultation. Therefore, having listened to the whole of this debate and being

187
somewhat baffled by many observations. I would say to your Lordships that what is required is to discover an accurate definition, or a series of definitions, which the Secretary of State has to take into consideration.
My advice to my noble friend on the Front Bench—I am not complaining; I have myself been on Front Benches and have acted under instructions and deployed a brief—is not to say, "We resist this Amendment," but to consider its implications, its possible ramifications and complexities. There was a vast difference between the speech of the mover of the Amendment, who did not seem to be very expert, and the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, who is an expert—whatever else might be said about him, he is an expert. He divided the employees, professional and others, into their categories; and indeed this is the normal situation.
Therefore my advice to my noble friend is that the Government should look at this again—it can be dealt with at Report stage—to ascertain whether it is possible for the Government draftsmen to find some kind of definition which would be saitisfactory to all concerned. That is what is wanted. To suggest that there is a problem which is intractable and incapable of solution is political nonsense. I do not believe in political nonsense; we must be realistic. Therefore, with great respect to my noble friend on the Front Bench, I offer to him that advice.
Baroness SEEAR: I think it goes with-out saying that we all agree that we do not want a proliferation of unions. Although I have not had the opportunity to check it, it may be of help to remind your Lordships' Committee that the Donovan Commission did not come out in favour of what is normally regarded as industrial unionism. The term "industrial unionism" was used this afternoon. The Donovan Commission came out in favour of one union for each grade of employee within the organisa-tion. It seems to me that what we are trying to achieve by this Amendment, even though the wording may not be perfect, is in the spirit of the recommendations of the Donovan Commission.
5.3 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: This Amendment is similar to an Amendment which was submitted in the other place and rejected on a Division. On this occasion, I hope that I may be able to persuade the noble Earl to withdraw his Amendment. A union membership agreement is made between employers on the one side and unions on the other. It is a two-sided affair, and we can expect that the employer will wish to protect all of his employees. Particularly will he be seeking to protect those of his employees who are closest to him, those who are in relatively short supply. This applies to managerial and professional staff. They are closest to the employer and very often they are in short supply. It is inevitable that the employer who is a party to the union membership agreement will wish to give protection to that category of his staff. There is no great objection of the unions to that wish.
In winding up the debate on Second Reading, I said that during the whole of my working life I had been in closed shops in different parts of the country. I can also say that for 50 years I have been a member of a union which caters for managerial and professional staffs, and in case there may be any misunderstandings, it is affiliated to the Trades Union Congress. Never on any occasion during those 50 years has there been any difficulty whatever, in the closed shop situation to obtain recognition of the smaller union. Never has there been objection to obtaining recognition from the employer or from the trade unions.
It is not the small unions of professional people to which the larger trade unions object. Their objection is to the splinter groups. Splinter groups are not in the interests of the workers, the management, or the public at large. As the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, has reminded us, recently we have had a very strong lesson, and it is worth while looking for one minute at that lesson. When British Rail and the unions recognised by British Rail failed to come to an agreement on restructuring the wages in the industry, it was eventually referred to arbitration. In due course, the arbitrators made their decision which was not accepted by a handful of signalmen who were in a splinter union. The official

189
trade unions and the management reviewed the situation and improved the signalmen's pay, and they went some way towards meeting their problem.
Despite the arbitration and despite the review, a mere handful of people in a splinter union had been able to hold the public at ransom and cause grave inconvenience, had caused British Rail to lose millions of pounds in revenue and impaired their ability to pay decent wages not merely to the signalmen but to the rest of their staff. They had gravely jeopardised negotiations that were then taking place for the annual wages review —a review which, in fact, included the signalmen in question. Those are smaller unions of the kind to which the larger unions object, not the smaller unions of professional bodies.
The Government line up with the unions in that regard and have taken great care in the preparation of this Bill —which amends the 1974 Act—to give the flexibility which is required. This Bill provides that employees need not belong to a union which is a party to the agreement but may belong to some other specified union. The word "specified" is used for a particular purpose. We did not want to use the word "appropriate", because who was to decide what was appropriate? The word "appropriate" might have let in some of the splinter unions. When using the word "specified", we had in mind the smaller pro-fessional unions. Furthermore, this Bill goes to endless trouble to give flexibility to the union membership agreement so that any identifiable class can be excluded from the agreement, including the members of another union; for example, a small professional union. Therefore we consider that this Amendment is not necessary.
Also, we have certain doubts about the practicability of the Amendment. We submit that it is not the proper function of the Secretary of State, or any agency which may be appointed by him, to decide which unions ought to be specified in a union membership agreement. The entire agreement may have to be revised. Certainly it would have to be examined. Many of the agreements are long and involved. It might mean a complete re-drafting of the union membership agreement. At least, there would have to be

190
a thorough arguing of the case on both sides. We submit that this is not the function of the Secretary of State or of any agency which may be appointed by him.
Much of the lobbying of the smaller unions is part of a running battle for the recognition of unions by employers—an understandable battle. In the White Paper on the Protection of Employment Bill, we have made it very clear that it is our intention to include in that Bill some protection for unions, large and small, which cannot obtain recognition by employers. We have provided in the White Paper, particularly in paragraphs 45 and 46, that where a union feels that it ought to have recognition and that it is not getting recognition, it can use the advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service with a view to obtaining recognition. We believe that that is the nub of the problem. Therefore we say to the noble Earl that this problem is being dealt with in a subsequent Bill. With that assurance, we hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
I could not understand one point on local government which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill. Again, this is a question of recognition by the employer. Our understanding of the position is that the Association of Local Authority Chief Executives and the Joint Committee of Professional Officers' Associations are recognised for negotiating purposes in respect of the Chief Officers' National Joint Council. It would appear, therefore, that the noble Lord is assuming that, as a result of this Bill, the existing negotiating machinery will be completely overthrown. Certainly, the Government do not expect that to happen.
5.10 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: First, may I take up the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. I am the first to admit that my experience in this field is limited. If every Amendment which I move takes as long as the first two Amendments, I think that I shall resume my weekly journeys to and from the European Parliament, although it is not, perhaps, wholly in order for me to say that. I take responsibility for the drafting, and the phrase "independent trade union" means no more and no less than what it says. It is the definition in Section 30(1) of the 1974 Act. It was

191
put there deliberately, and indeed was so phrased in order that there should not be any confusion. If I may say so, that honest attempt has not lessened the con-fusion that there has been in this Committee this afternoon.
May I plead with your Lordships on the basis of what this Amendment does not do. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, has left the Chamber, but I do not suppose it matters. This Amendment will not proliferate, nor does it seek to proliferate, any splinter groups or small unions, nor do I suggest—and I do not think it has been suggested on behalf of the Government— that it will lead to industrial chaos. Certainly, when the Minister of State dealt with the matter in the other place he did not take that view. He made it perfectly plain that he—speaking, I dare say, for himself—supported smaller unions and unions which were outside the ambit of the TUC. So let us get away from the allegation that this Amendment will pro-vide a vehicle for those within the trade union movement to cause upset and chaos. That it does not do.
Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Douglass, was wrong when he said that this Amendment had something to do with the Amendment which I understand may be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, at a later stage. It may be that it was unfortunate that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, raised the question of the Press, because it immediately made the debate somewhat wider than it need have been. This Amendment does not apply to the Press as such, though I anticipate it could well be used if, for instance, you had a very small local paper with, say, six members of one union and one member of another union on the staff. If the proprietor of the newspaper wished to come to a closed shop agreement, he could, as it were, be prevented for a period from doing so by the application of this Amendment by the single member who would, in effect, have the opportunity to shout, "Help, my rights are affected. I want the matter investigated by the Secretary of State"—not by a court, not in the first instance by a tribu-
nal, not by any person who would be disagreeable to the trade union as a whole and himself in particular. As my noble and learned friend said, one would imagine that, if there were any frivolous application to the Secretary of State, that applicant would soon be 'shot out".
All that this Amendment does is to give a right in certain circumstances to groups of workers to have a grievance ventilated. As I said when I moved it, She whole idea is to stop a potential industrial disagreement. I suggest that there is nothing in the Amendment which will merit the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell—"this sort of non-sense". That is a matter for your Lord-ships to decide.
If I may now turn to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, he, in effect, and I do not blame him, repeated the attitude of the Government in Standing Committee when the Minister of State—I hope I am being fair in paraphrasing—said that this is not a bad idea. There must in the future be some form of arbitration machinery to cover the sort of situations, or some of them, which we have been discussing this afternoon. But—wait for it—we are going to produce another lovely new Bill, the Employment Protection Bill, and all will be revealed. I hope that that is not an unfair way of putting the noble Lord's and indeed the Government's position.
We do not think that is good enough. We think it would be better to set up the machinery now which, as I suggest, is entirely innocuous in character. If at a later stage the Government, as they may well do, think that in a future Bill —whenever in this rather crowded Session it comes before this House or another place—they want to improve upon the position, by all means they can do so. In the meantime, I am not very favourably affected by the noble Lord's argument and I shall seek to persuade my friends to follow me through the Lobby.
5.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 137; Not-Contents, 81.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Allan of Kilmahew, L.

Amory, V.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Allerton, L.

Arran, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Banks, L.

Foot, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Barnby, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Moyne, L.

Barrington, V.

Gisborough, L.

Nairne, Ly.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Glasgow, E.

Newall, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Northchurch, B.

Belstead, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Norwich, V.

Berkeley, B.

Goschen, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Gray, L.

Ogmore, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Grenfell, L.

Platt, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gridley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Robbins, L.

Burnham, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Byers, L.

L.

Rochester, L.

Caccia, L.

Halsbury, E.

Ruthven of Frecland, Ly.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hankcy, L.

St. Davids, V.

Camrose, V.

Hanworth, V.

St. Helens, L.

Carrington, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Just, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hartwell, L.

Sandys, L. [Tetter.

Chalfont, L.

Harvington, L.

Seear, B.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Henley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Colwyn, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Inglewood, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Cottesloe, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Shannon, E.

Courtown, E.

Killearn, L.

Sharples, B.

Cowley, E.

Kilmany, L.

Somers, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stamp, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Kindersley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Daventry, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Davidson, V.

Lauderdale, E.

L.

Denbigh, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strathspey, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Swansea, L.

Derwent, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swaythling, L.

Drogheda, E.

Lyell, L.

Tenby, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lytton, E.

Terrington, L.

Dundonald, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Teviot, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trevelyan, L.

Eccles, V.

Mansfield, E.

Vickers, B.

Effingham, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vivian, L.

Elton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mersey, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Essex, E.

Meston, L.

Wigoder, L.

Exeter, M.

Monck, V.

Young, B.

Falmouth, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

NON-CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Ardwick, L.

(L. Chancellor.)

Maelor, L.

Arwyn, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Bacon, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Melchett, L.

Balogh, L.

Gardiner, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Bernstein, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Beswick, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pannell, L.

Birk, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Pargiter, L.

Blyton, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Bowden, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brockway, L.

Hale, L.

Raglan, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hall, V.

Rathcreedan, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hamnett, L.

Rhodes, L.

Castle, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Champion, L.

Hayter, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Chorley, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Crook, L.

Hughes, L.

Slater, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Jacques, L.

Snow, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Kissin, L.

Stewart of Alverchurch, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Darwen, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Summerskill, B.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

194

195

Thurlow, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Wynne-Jones, L.

Wigg, L.

Wise, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
5.27 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Code of practice on freedom of the press
" . After section 1 of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following section:
'Code of practice on freedom of the press.
1A.—(1) If, before the end of the period of six months beginning the press. with the passing of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1975, there is agreed among parties including employers of journalists, or employers' associations representing such employers, and trade unions representing journalists, a code of practice containing practical guidance for employers, trade unions, editors and other journalists on matters relating to the freedom of the press, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of that code.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, matters relating to the freedom of the press include such matters as the avoidance of improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment or criticism, and the application of union membership agreements to journalists.
(3) If no such code of practice has been agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall, after consultation with the Press Council, and such of the parties referred to in that subsection, such organisations representing workers and such organisations representing employers, as he thinks fit, prepare in draft a code of practice containing such practical guidance as is referred to in that subsection, and shall lay the draft before both Houses of Parliament.
(4) If the draft laid under subsection (1) or (3) above is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the code of practice in the form of the draft.
(5) A code of practice agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above may be revised from time to time by agreement between such parties as are referred to

196
in that subsection, and the Secretary of State shall lay a draft of the revised code before both Houses of Parliament.
(6) A code of practice which was prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above, may be revised from time to time by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Press Council, and such of the parties referred to in subsection (1) above, such organisations representing workers and such organisations representing employers, as he thinks fit, and the Secretary of State shall lay a draft of the revised code before both Houses of Parliament.
(7) If the draft laid under subsection (5) or (6) above is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the revised code of practice in the form of the draft.
(8) On issuing a code of practice or a revised code under subsection (4) or (7) above the Secretary of State shall make by statutory instrument an order specifying the date on which the code or revised code is to come into effect.
(9)A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a code of practice which is for the time being in force under this section shall not of itself render him liable to any proceedings but in any proceedings for breach of contract in any court between a journalist and his employer or between a member of a trade union representing journalists and that trade union, or in any proceedings before an industrial tribunal under Schedule 1 to this Act—

(a) any such code of practice shall be admissible in evidence, and

(b) any provision of such a code of practice which appears to the court or tribunal to be relevant to any question arising in those proceedings shall be taken into account by the court or tribunal in determining that question." "

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause standing in my name and in the names of my noble friends. This is the proposal which I foreshadowed

197
in the speech that I made to your Lordships' House on 25th February. I need scarcely say that I have no personal interest in the matter under discussion; I am not a journalist, I am not an editor and I am not a newspaper proprietor. From experience as Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party for seven years, I am now by disposition a peace-maker, a finder of the middle way—a sort of minor Lord Goodman. I hope that between us the middle way will be found.
I was encouraged to think along the lines of this new clause by the remarks made by the Secretary of State in another place on the 13th February. I paraphrase what he said, which was to the effect that he hoped that the parties— that is, the editors and proprietors and unions—would pursue the idea of a charter or a code of practice, and if both sides desired an agreed charter or code to be embodied in legislative form the Government would be willing to consider it. I then linked this idea with the existing code of industrial practice which was embodied in the 1971 Act and re-enacted in the 1974 Act. The re-enacted provisions will be found in Part I of Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act. These two ideas combine to suggest a way towards better understanding and the hope that present anxieties, deeply felt and sincerely held, might be allayed.
This new clause relates to the written word; not at present to broadcasting and not to the printing unions. Broadcasting could be brought within the scope of this new clause if it were thought desirable, but at present my judgment is that the problems' of the newspaper industry and of journalists could be distinguished from those of the broadcasting authorities. The new clause contains an implied invitation to the parties concerned to try their best to agree on a code of practice, and to do so within six months of the passing of this Bill. If they do not agree within that period, a draft of the code would have to be laid before both Houses of Parliament by the Secretary of State for approval.
I have seen it suggested that the freedom of the Press is not a matter for negotiation between journalists, editors and proprietors. The freedom of the Press,

198
it is said, belongs to our fundamental liberties and should not be disposed of by agreement between those engaged in the industry. What we are discussing is more the freedom of editors than the freedom of the Press; they are not always the same thing. But if they fail to agree, then the Amendment requires the Secretary of State, after consultation, to deal with this matter himself and to lay his own draft. In both cases the approval of this House is necessary. The public interest is safeguarded by the approval which has to be given by both Houses of Parliament to an agreed code, if there is one, or by the draft of the Secretary of State, if he is required to produce one by the terms of the new clause.
The Amendment says that the code shall include
" practical guidance for employers, trades unions, editors and other journalists on matters relating to the freedom of the press …".
Subsection (2) says that
"… matters relating to the freedom of the press include such matters as the avoidance of improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment or criticism, and the application of union membership agreements to journalists."
I stress the importance of the latter part of that subsection, which states:
"… the application of union membership agreements to journalists."
and includes the application of union membership agreements to editors, and other matters relevant to what we have recently been talking about in this connection.
The question of the incidence of so-called outside contributors—often described as "freedom of access to the Press"—would be within the scope of the code. I suggest that it is in the reasonable interest of the National Union of Journalists to safeguard the livelihood of its members. What was said by Mr. Ken Morgan, the General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists, in the Observer, and by the Chairman of the National Union of Journalists at a meeting on Saturday, seems to be very reasonable in this connection. It is not an unworthy interest of a union to safeguard the employment of its members.
The only question at issue, then, is whether in so doing, they are harming the public interest or "crabbing" the Press, or putting unnecessary restrictions on the

199
freedom of the editor. The freedom of the Press does not imply complete freedom to ignore the legitimate interests of those employed in it; it is the job of the trade union to look after those interests. The duty of the trade union is to discharge that responsibility with reasonable safeguards, both for its members and for other interests. So I suggest that the code which the Amendment, encourages the parties to negotiate and to try to agree upon, can cover all the points of difficulty and apprehension that we have heard so much about.
The first tentative draft of the kind of code of practice which might be envisaged under this new clause has been put forward by the Editor of the Guardian, Mr. Alastair Hetherington. I think your Lordships should pay tribute to the efforts which the Editor of the Guardian has made to resolve this difficulty, and for the most helpful comments made in one of the leading articles in the Guardian yesterday. Progress on this code on a voluntary basis would have been further advanced today had it not been for the attitude of those representing the newspapers at the joint discussion presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce. On that occasion, the proprietors and editors made it a condition of discussing the code put forward by Mr. Hetherington that this Bill before the House today should ban the closed shop in the newspaper industry. That was a precondition which they wished to lay down before embarking on the discussions which the NUJ and other unions were prepared to continue. That is a condition which I suggest—
Lord GOODMAN: If the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will allow me to intervene, we might dispose of this canard immediately. I am authorised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, to say that when he asked the various representatives to come to the meeting he fully understood that none of them had any mandate from anyone, that they were coming in order to hear what was said and had no authority to reach any decision. At that precise moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will know, a more significant meeting was taking place, at which the noble Lord and I were present, when I willingly accepted the

200
possibility of discussing a code that had the force of law. To make overmuch of this, as has the noble Lord on three occasions now, is a little unfair.
5.37 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, but I have in my hand the report made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, to the Secretary of State, of the conference which took place on 20th February. I will not trouble your Lordships with all its details. It contains a list of all those present. I was not in a position, nor presumably was anyone else, to know whether those present were authorised to speak for the organisations, for the employers or for the interests they represented. But they were all there— the Guild of Newspaper Editors, the Newspaper Society, the Newspaper Publishers' Association, the National Union of Journalists, the Institute of Journalists, the Scottish Daily Newspapers Society, the Scottish Newspaper Proprietors' Association, and Fleet Street editors.
Your Lordships may be aware of the fact that, although the discussion was amicable, it was agreed by 13 votes to 2 that provided the Press and broadcasting were excluded from the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill, the organisations concerned would be prepared to discuss the framing of a charter to safeguard the freedom of the Press and broadcasting in the widest context, and to prevent improper pressures from any quarter. Surely that bears out the statement I made a few moments ago. With the greatest respect, I am saying that your Lordships' House cannot agree to ban the closed shop from the newspaper industry in order to pave the way for discussions on a code of practice. Certainly, my noble friends and I could never agree to that precondition. We cannot outlaw the closed shop in journalism and the media, and discriminate against one field of employment and one union in this regard.
But we can agree—and the new clause provides for this—to apply a union membership agreement in the newspaper industry with reasonable common sense and understanding of the problems of which those employed in it will be fully aware. The code should ensure that if agreement is reached it can be laid by the

201
Secretary of State before both Houses of Parliament for approval. If that proves possible, very good indeed. If all the difficulties prove negotiable, no one, surely, will be better pleased than your Lordships and Members of another place. But if not, if there is no agreement despite best endeavours, however friendly, then the new clause places upon the Secretary of State a statutory duty to draw up his own code of guidance and lay the draft before both Houses of Parliament. Subsection (3) of the new clause makes provision for the Secretary of State, if he is called upon to do that, to hold consultations over the widest field, as wide as he thinks fit. He could then bring into his consultations the TUC, editors, the CBI; he is required to consult the Press Council by the new clause itself. But there is no limit upon the consultation that he can embark upon before himself laying a draft.
This, therefore, is the distinction that is made between the area of consultation if the Secretary of State has to embark on this task and the area of negotiation, if the code can be agreed, under subsection (2). The editors are not left out in either case. There is no need specifically to bring them in. If a code can be negotiated, the parties concerned can decide upon those who shall be brought into the discussions upon this important matter. That will be for them: proprietors, editors, unions, the lot. But if the Secretary of State is required to discharge his statutory duty, then the area of consultation must be widened, and that is provided for in subsection (3). Subsections (5) to (8) deal with the procedure for revision of the code, whether by agreement or under the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
Now I come to the most difficult question, that of enforcement: whether the code should be given the force of law. It will, of course, be given legislative sanction. But the question is, shall it be enforceable. It will no doubt be said that the code, whether it is agreed or whether it is the work of the Secretary of State, will have no teeth, no real effectiveness, unless it is given the force of law. I do not want to harp again at length on the subject of law enforcement in this difficult field. But where is the evidence, I ask, of the effectiveness of the force of law in industrial relations? I wish we could clear our minds on this. Part of the trouble is that the

202
history of trade unionism is the history of struggle against the law, and the deep suspicion of the law and mistrust of the law. In many quarters in the trade union movement this is very difficult to overcome. Whereas the trade unions in Europe look to the law to establish their rights, the disposition in this country is for the trade union movement to look at the law because they think it will deprive them of their rights; and that is one of the differences in trade union outlook which I submit will have to be considered in relation to our membership of the European Community.
This Bill, and the principal Act before it, repeals the provisions for the force of law which were contained in the 1971 Act, an Act which the Conservative Party, after their own disillusionment and dreadful experience of that Act, have said that they would not wish to reintroduce. It became unworkable. I have no need again to read out the obituary of the Industrial Relations Act 1971. But one thing it did do which has survived in the 1974 Act, and which I am now making use of in putting forward this new clause, is the code of industrial practice which was first put in the early clauses of the 1971 Act and which have been re-enacted in Schedule 1, Part I of the 1974 Act. It was this part of the 1974 Act that I looked at for encouragement in putting forward this new clause.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: If I may interrupt my noble friend for one moment, I think he will have in mind that that code of practice had in fact the force of law.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: The code of practice in the Industrial Relations Act 1971 and in the Act of 1974 does not have the force of law, but I shall be coming later, if I have your Lordships' patience, to what is the legislative significance of the code, if one is agreed or one is approved by both Houses of Parliament on the recommendation of the Secretary of State. I emphasise the fact that the proposed code under the new clause would have exactly the same status as the general industrial code of practice which was re-enacted in 1974, and it would have the same authority of approval by both Houses of Parliament, exactly the same, parallel with but without prejudice to

203
the generality of the industrial code of practice.
But this clause goes a little further. In subsection (9) it provides for the code of practice to be quoted in any proceedings for breach of contract in any court between a journalist and his employer. That is an addition to the provisions of the 1974 code and it is related to the special circumstances of newspaper editors. All in all, what I am asking your Lordships to do is to make a considerable, and I hope a successful, contribution towards achieving our common purpose. I hope that this new clause will prove acceptable in another place. I have no means of knowing for certain whether it will. I am not acting, in bringing forward this new clause, as an agent either for another place or for the Secretary of State. This idea was put by me to the Secretary of State, I freely admit, to see what his reaction to it might be. I was not discouraged from proceeding with the drafting of this new clause, and that is all I can say.
But if we press too hard and too far, by amending this new clause, by mutilating it, by making it unacceptable to another place, then your Lordships will finish up, all of us will finish up, with nothing at all, nothing whatsoever. We are familiar enough with the procedure to realise that if an Amendment goes to another place and is rejected there, it will be impossible to amend that further when it reaches your Lordships' House for final attention. And what is more, in certain circumstance a difference between this House and another place on a matter of this kind might raise difficulties we would wish to avoid. What I think is much worse than that is that there would be no basis upon which we could encourage the newspaper industry to reach this code of practice. We might be doing a grave disservice to the future peace in the newspaper industry. We might be doing grave harm indeed to the freedom of the Press.
Therefore we have a very heavy responsibility. The consequences of overreaching ourselves could be damaging to the very cause we have at heart. I beg of your Lordships to view this new clause favourably. I will not anticipate Amendments to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. We shall see what he wishes to do with the proposed new clause when

204
he comes to that point. We can give his proposals careful consideration along with the contents of the new clause. But with great respect, I hope that I may be permitted to reaffirm my belief that our hope lies substantially in this new clause, and if we keep to that I sincerely believe that we shall properly have made a contribution in this House which proved impossible in another place and which might redound to the credit and to the constructive ability of this House to improve legislation coming from another place. I beg to move.
5.51 p.m.
Lord GOODMAN Lord GOODMAN moved Amendment No. 15 as an Amendment to No. 14:
In subsection (1), line 6, after ("employers") insert (" editors and such editors' organisations ").
The noble Lord said: At the outset may I be permitted to pay a sincere tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. He has worked extraordinarily hard to try to reconcile the differences between his viewpoint and that of my friends and myself in this matter, and no-one could have worked harder. I feel singularly ungracious in saying to him at the outset that, if I am incurring the risk of losing this concession because of asking, Oliver Twist-like, for more, that is a risk which I incur with complete composure. I do not regard what we are offered in this Amendment as having the slightest value for the purposes for which I am urging the Committee to make a change. I must say this at the outset. If I did not say that there would be a large measure of insincerity in what I say next.
The noble Lord said that he had no interest to declare in this matter. I have several professional interests to declare, as chairman of the Newspaper Publishers' Association, who have given me no instructions in this matter, and for whom I am not speaking; I am chairman of the Observer Trust, who have given me no instructions in this matter, and for whom I am not speaking, and I happen to be the chairman of the Jewish Chronicle. I hasten to say that they have given me no instructions in this matter and I do not speak for them either. But. I do speak, I think, for everyone in this Committee who is concerned for such an historic privilege and right that we possess. I think, also, that I speak not only for

205
them in this matter, but for their children and grandchildren. I think we shall deeply deplore and regret it if we allow this situation to pass without making some significant change to the law now suggested.
I hoped, as did the noble Lord, that we should be able to avoid a confrontation in this matter. I hope that my proposals may be seen as an extended olive branch. I and my friends will make ourselves available day and night to see whether we can avoid forcing this matter by the weight of votes in this House. I do not think this ought to be a political matter. It is, I hope, no disparagement of the noble Lords on the Opposition side, but it would be a sad thing if the right to preserve the freedom of the Press were forced upon us by the vote of the Opposition or by any Party vote. Hence I urge the Leader of the House—and I know there is no-one who will respond more readily to such urging—that we continue to consider whether the differences between us can be bridged in a fashion which is acceptable to us.
There are historical issues involved in what we are discussing today. One of the problems with which we have to deal—and we have to admit it—is the fact that we are talking on rather different planes. When we last debated this subject. I heard the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, saying with some asperity that I was an arid intellectual and asking what was the difference between some scribbler who was scribbling and the man who was working on a lathe or repairing a road? The difference is simple: each man who is scribbling is scribbling something different. This is the vital and essential point which I have to commend to your Lordships. You cannot therefore seek to regulate these activities by a common code that applies to everyone.
I wonder whether I might give an example from my own childhood, because it was one of the most formative experiences that I had. I used to bicycle no great distance to a bookshop in the East End of London. It was a surprising shop. One half was full of pulp magazines, from which the bookseller made his living; the other was full of literature of the highest quality and he used to talk to me about the books. I learned more from him about books, and was more

206
influenced towards the way of life I have since developed, by that man than by any other human being. He wrote, and one of the problems with which we have to deal today is that the union says, in union industrial terms: "We cannot allow a non-professional to take a job if there is a professional writer available". But there is no such thing as a professional writer.
I will appeal, if I may venture to do so, to the noble Lord who is sitting alongside me, who is one of the most distinguished novelists living. I wonder whether he will say there is such a thing as a professional writer in the sense that a man can take instruction, a course or an apprenticeship. The man I mentioned became a very important and distinguished dramatist between selling his pulp magazines and selling, or trying to sell, his better literature, which, so far as I know, no-one bought—I alone read it— but he developed a skill as a dramatist which was outstanding, and he had three or four plays produced.
If he had been a journalist, there is no doubt that the National Union of Journalists, with great validity, would have said that he could not be a member because he did not earn enough from his journalistic activities. There is very little doubt that they would have the right, if they sought the right, as they have done already and may well do again, to exclude him from journalistic activities in the future. Is this a situation which we can possibly tolerate in this country at this moment? Is it something for which I ought to be asking? Is it conceivable that 10 years ago the Labour Party would have offered any resistance at all to the suggestion that the four exclusions that I seek to obtain in this Bill should be a matter for debate and discussion in the Houses of Parliament?
I know what has happened. I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I venture to expand on this point—it is nothing bad and nothing sinister. I will say what has happened, and we really must count our blessings. The other day the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, drew attention to the subversive influences in trade unions and elsewhere—and rightly did so—but what he did not draw attention to was the miracle that we are achieving a revolution in this country without a revolution. This is the cause

207
of the difficulties which we are now encountering. People who were deprived of power are obtaining power, and they are obtaining power legitimately through the democratic process. But the taking of power cannot be measured with such nicety that problems of this kind will not arise in the course of it. We have enormous blessings which we have acquired because of it. We have the blessing of changes of a revolutionary nature, the transfer of power from an exclusive group of people to the entire community, without bloodshed, without violence, without the sort of disturbance that other countries have suffered. If, therefore, we have a problem of this sort arising from this historic change, it is something which we should recognise without too much regret and which we should set our minds to solving.
I am not a friend of the Industrial Relations Act of 1971. I have heard the poor Act mauled and murdered, and so many harsh words have been said about it that I have almost felt it necessary to start a society to enable some slight recognition to be given to its better parts, because there were better parts of that measure. There never was a curate's egg of an Act like that one. But the fact remains that, whether or not one supports the Act, what one must not do is allow the process of wiping away, obliterating and washing away the Act with soap and pumice stone, with acid and with every kind of detergent that can be found; to wipe away things that ought to be preserved is the danger.
I refer now to the Secretary of State in the Commons, and I should like to say that I very much regret the attack made on him on this House during the Second Reading debate. I have known him for many years and, whatever one may say about his views on this matter, no-one can question his sincerity and courage. I am in profound disagreement with him today, and no doubt I shall be in profound disagreement with him on many other matters. But I know that he has become obsessed with the trade union aspects of this subject and, sadly, he refuses to recognise the dangers that arise from some of these changes.
Let me say a word about the National Union of Journalists. This is in the main a highly responsible body of men. I

208
doubt whether there is a section of the community which is more concerned with the liberties of the country than are the journalists. Nor is there a body which has, through its membership been more active in preserving those liberties. But we have a situation in which the National Union of Journalists has 27,000 members and it would be unspeakable folly to entrust the right of deciding who is to publish in a newspaper to 27,000 people, if it were 27,000 people who were concerned.
The last thing I want to do is to prolong a quarrel with the National Union of Journalists, but I must draw your Lordships' attention to something that happened in relation to the union's attitude towards registering under the 1971 Act because it is extremely significant so far as concerns the argument about how far we can trust ourselves with a small union of this kind. I shall give the figures. After the 1971 Act had become law, the executive met to recommend that there should be a ballot to determine whether the union should register or deregister. That resolution was passed by 21 votes to 9, but the executive included the recommendation that in sending out the ballot papers it would express its own view that the union ought to deregister. It expressed its view and, as often happens, that view was rejected and, by 6,384 votes saying "Yes" to 3,807 votes saying "No", the union, through its membership, decided to register. Then what happened? The union holds an annual delegate meeting and at that meeting, by 298 votes to 82, the union decided that it would not register. So the ballot was totally ignored. Then there was dissension and upset on the part of the membership and they demanded, as it were, a recount and asked for further discussions and meetings. At the further meeting, the position was maintained by 171 votes to 160. Therefore, if I may say so, we are being invited by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and by the Secretary of State in the House below, to entrust our fortunes to 11 votes or, to be scrupulously fair—though I have no reason to be so —to 171 votes out of the 27,000 members of the Union.
Does that really make sense, and can we really accept all the pious assurances in Mr. Michael Foot's article that we

209
should be wrong to pay attention to the resolutions of the annual delegate meeting and that they all mean nothing and are all froth? Should we believe that the people who are really running the union are the kindly, benevolent souls like Mr. Kenneth Morgan?—and indeed he is kindly and benevolent, and a more honourable man one will not find. I met him last night at the splendid lecture organised by the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, and I wish that everyone on the Government Benches had attended that lecture because Mr. Roy Jenkins said all that I need to say, and said it with great courage. He made a point that is rarely made: we talk about a free Press as if it were some abstraction plucked out of the air and obtaining some common denominator of freedom that operates all over the newspapers. There is no such thing. A free Press is the right to have enough newspapers to publish everyone's viewpoint. The moment one reduces the number of newspapers, one reduces the freedom of the Press. If the number of papers is reduced to one or two, the freedom of the Press is destroyed. It cannot continue to exist.
There are no rules that can be put into a charter to tell a man how to edit a newspaper so that it expresses total impartiality. There are no such rules. There is no means of putting into a charter what the contents of a newspaper ought to do. What one has to do is to have a sufficient number of newspapers to correct and put to right the faults that one editor may insert into his newspaper. Without that, there is disaster. Mr. Jenkins recognised that fact as few recognise it, unless they happen to be experts in the field and have been watching it and thinking about it for years. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that the necessity is that we should preserve a sufficiency of newspapers by preserving sufficient freedom for sufficient people to publish in them.
How can any union say in relation to professional writers that it is going to choose a professional member—one who has paid up his dues? I touched on this point in my last speech and made a rather dubious joke about it; but the point is, how can any union tell an editor who he is to substitute for the expert writing of a man who has the talent which he has developed, God knows how? Nobody

210
knows how a writer develops, and the skill and genius of writing has nothing to do with political systems and nothing to do with financial rewards. Rich men make good writers and poor men make poor writers, and vice versa. In tyrannies there are great writers. It is a strange thing that in the despotism of the Russian Czarist régime some of the greatest writers in the world existed. In the freedom in many democratic States there is not a word that is readable. No one can explain this except the Almighty. But once one starts regulating writers with trade union regulations one will destroy every glimmer and every spark of genius and creativity that exists.
To address myself specially to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who made an appeal to me, this is not a trade union matter. This is not a matter where we are concerned in the slightest in restricting any rights in relation to trade unions. I am no enemy to trade unions. Only yesterday, a letter appeared on my desk from a trade union asking me to become their ombudsman. I may say that I should be very chary of accepting the offer, knowing the amount of work that it would involve, but I regarded it as one of the greatest compliments I have ever received. But that trade union would realise quite well the difference that exists in this matter: it would see that, if a man can write and has something to say, nothing is put in the way of his being able to do that. The suggestion that one can deal with this by a code of practice is, if I may say so with the greatest respect, egregious nonsense. It is nothing else, and it has to be so described.
If I may turn to the charter proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I would point out with no direspect at all that he says that he has a document that will be evolved in agreement between the parties connected with the industry. There is not the remotest chance of any such agreement being achieved. We will sit down and we will try very hard, but I do not believe that the people who are aspiring to have the sort of rights of which they already have a promise and of which they already have an anticipation— they have tasted the heady wine of the power that they will be able to exercise— will release the prospect of that power and return to normal democratic processes. I do not believe that but, in

211
any event, we will negotiate, however, if we have this charter, and assuming that we are able to reach agreement, we are told that it is to have a purely persuasive effect and that in any court or tribunal the charter may be called in aid to influence the court in deciding exactly how all the parties ought to have behaved. But what are the proceedings? What court will be able to be invoked? The Act provides that a man can be expelled from a union with no explanation, no trial, no redress. When is he to invoke this particular right? Supposing it had the slightest value, in to what court is he to call it in aid? Into what procedings is he to call it in aid?
There is the remote possibility that the Common Law—and I do not know if there are any Law Lords present, so I shall be rather circumspect in saying what I am going to say, being about to air a view on the progression of the law, though not in the least offensively—was groping towards something like the right to work. One or two cases emerged in the Common Law; one was the case of a lady trainer who obtained a judgment against the Jockey Club, which had stopped her from working, and there was another case in which the same sort of possibility was beginning to emerge in a groping way. But nobody knows how that will emerge and nobody knows if that right will not have been obliterated and destroyed by this Act. And that is all. That is the only prospect of any attempt to invoke the law on behalf of somebody who has been excluded from a union. What is the use of this persuasive section? On this subject, I should like to hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, explain why he thinks it can have the slightest benefit.
Hence, we have ventured to make some amendments which, as I have said, are of the mildest possible character. We have accepted the structure and framework of a charter. We have preferred the word "charter", because that indicates the existence of rights and we have inserted in that charter four matters which will be mandatory. One is the freedom of the editor. Much has been said on this and I do not think it is necessary to say another word, except that unless an editor is free from pressures—union and all

212
other pressures—he cannot be a successful editor. If a proprietor exerts pressures, he pays the inevitable price of having a bad newspaper. Hence it is very rare indeed, over the most recent years, that proprietors have exerted such pressures, because they know that they will lose an editor of quality. We have recently been joined in this House by a very great editor, and I suggest that it would be a brave proprietor indeed who would endeavour to exert pressure on him in these matters. It is not that the proprietor will not have the right to do it. It is simply that if he respects his commercial property, he will have the sense not to do it. In fact, he will have the sense to recognise that that editor will disappear and go next door.
What if anyone else tries to exert these pressures? What about advertising pressures? Nobody will, I think, deny that advertising has some effect and must in some way influence the content of a newspaper, but it would be a very skilful man with a very discerning, microscopic eye who could read a newspaper and say, "That paragraph was dictated by the advertiser." I think it is rare that an advertiser would have the effrontery to suggest any direct influence. I do not say that newspapers are infallible. They are fallible human institutions with human faults and in many personal matters perhaps they do not behave too well, but the Government set up a Press Commission to consider all this.
Why are we racing ahead with a measure which will preempt every possibility of the Press Commission preserving these rights when the Commission has just started its work again under a distinguished new chairman? What is the point of that? I submit that the Amendment which I propose to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is reasonable, that it should be accepted by the Committee without a Division, and that it is desperately necessary. It is necessary because, for some reason, it has been decided to proceed on the basis of total consistency, and this, I suggest, is another fault of the Secretary of State. This may sound a very excusable fault. I think that what he has said to himself is, " We must have the same treatement for everyone. If we are to have a closed shop, everyone must have a closed shop."
There is a kind of Teutonic thoroughness about this approach which might commend itself to a number of people, except that it is totally demented that one should seek to apply a Teutonic thoroughness to writers which has the same relevance and the same kind of effect as it will have to machine grinders or whatever operation is necessary, important and is carried on in shops under the control and supervision of trade unions. A writer is no better than a working man in some other capacity. A writer makes no such claim. He is just different. I am not making my claim on the ground that he is an intellectually superior person. He may write the utmost rubbish or pornography, or what he writes may be touched with divine inspiration; but whatever he writes, it is totally different from the activity of the people who are concerned with and affected by this measure.
I make a final plea to the Leader of the House. I hope he will respond to the invitation I extend, so that we may still have a further opportunity of considering the implications of this Bill. It will do much more credit in the light of history to the Labour Party and the Government if they accept my Amendment and concede the claim that is being made by honest and anxious voices in all parts of the country than if they inexorably force through this legislation in the belief that, by achieving an improvement in trade union status, they are achieving an improvement in journalistic and literary status. What I have said applies equally to broadcasting, radio, independent broadcasting and to the BBC. It applies to every creative activity. I hope that we may be able to reach a compromise that will leave an issue of this kind happily unresolved by any politicial decision, so that it can never be said in future years that the liberty of the Press was lost or gained by the vote of any section of any political Party in this House or elsewhere. I beg to move.
6.17 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to intervene at this stage and explain the position of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the two Amendments that are before the Committee. To the noble Lord, Lord Goodman,

214
I say that I count myself fortunate to have been born an optimist, because during the earlier part of his speech I became rather depressed, but I became more hopeful as I listened to the noble Lord's latter remarks. On Second Reading I went to great pains to deal at some length with the problem that has emerged on this Bill regarding the freedom of the Press.
I said then, and I say again, that we are discussing the freedom of the Press in the wrong context, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, mentioned this. I made it clear that the Government were as anxious as anyone not only to maintain the freedom of the communications media but, if possible, to improve it. I have no doubt that that freedom can be maintained and, above all, be accepted by the reader and the listener only when the amount of Government intervention and the application of law are limited to the very minimum.
If one accepts that, one will appreciatae the reluctance of the Government to include in this Bill, which is about labour relations, matters concerning the media. We have, however, said that, should the Royal Commission on the Press give reason, the Government would not hesitate to legislate. But we would then have the advantages of a close investigation, a studied report and time to give thought and consultation for the right kind of legislation based on the principles of the freedom of the Press.
I acknowledge the concern in your Lordships' Committee and I recognise the realities of the situation. Equally, those who hold strong views will, I hope, accept that the Government's reluctance to depart from the views we have expressed here and in another place are for genuine reasons and are firmly based on the freedom of the Press. It seems to me, having studied the debates, the articles written and the conversations I have held, that the basic fear is not about the present but of possible events of the future. If that is so, is there not a case for going more slowly on the firm assurance that if the Royal Commission were to report and legislation were required, then we could legislate specifically for the freedom of the Press and not in the context of a trade union and labour relations measure?

215
That is what I would prefer and would urge on the Committee for consideration. An added reason for delay is the very helpful report of the meeting over the weekend of the executive of the NUJ. I should have thought that there is now enough common ground for the industry to work out their own agreement and I will return to this later in my remarks. If, however, the Committee are not content with that situation, then we must consider the series of proposals before the Committee.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Houghton, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for letting me have advance sight of their Amendments. The Houghton Amendment, if I may refer to it as such, has been in my possession some days and I can give a considered reply. As regards the Goodman Amendment, again if I may use this shorthand to refer to it as such, I had sight of it officially only late on Friday and, therefore, for obvious reasons, will express a provisional view. I shall also give careful consideration to the speech that the noble Lord, Lord Good-man, has just delivered.
The Government have consistently taken the line that it would be wrong to amend the Bill to make special provision for the Press by way of specifying that certain people, that is, editors, should not be covered by union membership agreements. This view is supported by a number of arguments. First, closed shops are not compulsory. There is no legislation that requires this. Secondly, the history of legislation on closed shops is far from encouraging. The experience of the Indus-trial Relations Act confirmed the judgment of the Donovan Report when it said that prohibition of the closed shop must be rejected. Thirdly, the Bill touches specifically on the closed shop in journal-ism (and "therefore on the freedom of the Press) in only a very limited way, because it had to deal with the question of unfair dismissal in the closed shop situation.
When the Bill was debated at Report stage in another place, the Secretary of State repeated what he had told the editors of the London newspapers—and my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby referred to it—that is, that it would be difficult to deal with the matter by legislation, but that if the parties concerned wished to see
216
an industrial agreement backed by some form of enactment in a code of practice, the Government would be prepared to consider that possibility. He emphasised —and I repeat it—that such a procedure might well add to the authority of such a document. The Government did not have in mind an Amendment to the Bill of the kind which my noble friend Lord Houghton has now proposed in order to achieve this. There might well have been other ways of doing this—for example, by an Amendment to the existing Code of Industrial Relations Practice under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act.
Nevertheless, there are some advantages in the approach which my noble friend Lord Houghton has adopted. It makes clear—and I should like to stress this— that the responsibility for drawing up a code rests with those concerned in the industry. It gives specific recognition to the importance of Press freedom in the Statute dealing with labour relations, but at the same time puts any code made relating to the Press on the same footing as the existing code; that is, a transgression of the code could not of itself give rise to proceedings before a court or an industrial tribunal, but if the code is relevant to proceedings taken on the basis of another statutory provision the code would be admitted as evidence, and taken into account by the tribunal or court.
Of course the talks within the industry came to an untimely end when a majority of those concerned decided that they would be prepared to discuss the framing of a charter to safeguard the freedom of the Press only if the Press was excluded from the provisions of this Bill and refused, with the exception of the NUJ representatives, to agree to try to formulate a charter irrespective of what went in the Bill.
One reason why I can welcome the main part of my noble friend's Amendment is that it places the emphasis on the need for the industry to come to an agreement acceptable to all sides. The Government's doubt about the Amendment centres on subsection (3). This places the possibility for producing a code on the Secretary of State, if the industry does not produce one in six months. I can appreciate why my noble friend proposes this, but this is not really a task for Government at all as my

217
noble friend Lord Houghton himself recognises in subsection (1) of his Amendment.
The whole question of union membership agreements—once the basic legal definitions have been made as flexible as possible—and the principles which might govern their application in particular industries is a matter best decided by industry. Moreover, it is quite alien to our traditions for the Government to be laying down what has to be done in relation to the freedom of the Press. It may be relevant to point out that the Inter-national Federation of Journalists has taken the view that codes of ethics for journalists are to be encouraged, but it has deplored the possibility of their being imposed by the State because of the risk that this could lead to unwelcome interference. I am sure that my noble friend—
Lord GOODMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but is he saying that the International Federation of Journalists has approved a suggestion that no one can write for a newspaper unless he is a member of a single union?
Lord SHEPHERD: What I said was that the Federation had said that the codes of ethics for journalists are to be encouraged, but it has deplored the pos-sibility of their being imposed by the State because of the risk that this could lead to unwelcome interference. I should have thought that that is clear enough.
Lord GOODMAN: I am very loth to insist upon this, but it is a matter of very great importance: the suggestion that the proposal of the Government is approved by an immensely important international institution. I must ask again, very specifically: is it suggested that it is approved by that institution that no one should write for a newspaper unless he is an accepted member of a single union, from which he can be expelled without reason or trial? Is that approved by that institution, because if it is I should be extremely—
Lord SHEPHERD: I think that the noble Lord is, if I may say so, making a debating point. To the best of my knowledge the codes of ethics of the Federation are similar to those of the NUJ. What I was seeking to establish, in
218
reference to the International Federation of Journalists, is its fear and reluctance to any imposition being put upon the media by legislation of the State, and I should have thought that all those in your Lordships' House would have accepted that—
Lord BROCKWAY: May I interrupt the Minister? I apologise for doing so, but if I may comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has said, is it not the case that last weekend the executive of the National Union of Journalists declared the right of access to any person, not limited to members of the union?
Lord SHEPHERD: Perhaps I may continue dealing with my noble friend's Amendment. I am sure that he has not made his proposal for any reason other than a desire to see that a sensible code emerges after not too great a lapse in time, and I am certain that he would wish to place the emphasis not on what the Secretary of State might do, but on the need for the industry to build on the useful start which some of those within it have made. I have heard expressed some doubt about my noble friend's Amendment, about whether the six months is in fact too short a time to allow the industry to finalise an agreement. If the Committee felt that this is so, we could consider the point. Personally I should hope, given the existing good will, and putting aside set positions, and led by men of determination, an agreement could be finalised in a short period of time.
Therefore despite the doubts that I have expressed about the desirability of the Secretary of State being involved in the way proposed, we welcome the Amendment as a whole in the hope and expectation that all those concerned in the industry will see their way to playing their part in the creation of a useful agreement.
I now turn to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. For reasons I have already explained, the views I now express can only be provisional. I should at the outset make clear that the Amendment is not acceptable to the Government in its present form. A number of points apparently basic to the noble Lord's Amendment cut completely across the line of approach hitherto taken by the Government. The effect of subsection (2)

219
would make talks within the industry much less meaningful because it lays down the ends to be achieved in advance. This is a very different approach from that hitherto adopted by the Government, and also from that in the Amendment by Lord Houghton. The aim has been to build the maximum flexibility into the law. The Bill legalises closed shops, but does not make them compulsory. It is for industry to work out where closed shops are thought to be appropriate, the conditions on which they should be made, and where employees should be covered.
Lord Goodman's Amendment appears to be designed to exclude editors from any obligation to join a trade union. This is putting editors into a very special position indeed. The Government arc not necessarily in favour of editors joining a union, but are not satisfied that this is a matter which should be prescribed by law. Moreover, noble Lords may notice that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, would give this right to "other persons exercising editorial responsibilities." This could run very wide indeed. I wonder whether the noble Lord, when he winds up, will give some indication as to whom he has in mind.
The Amendment would also give journalists the right to join a trade union of their choice. This is effectively outlawing the closed shop in journalism. The noble Lord shakes his head and indicates that this is not his intention; but that is my view. I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider particularly the implication of paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 17, because it appears to us that this is a legal ban on the closed shop on journalism.
While I would certainly hope and expect that editors will be free to publish articles free from pressure by industrial action, I have to ask whether this is the right way of going about this aim. It seems to me that there are much better ways of doing this than by laying down a right, subject to the legal penalties in Amendment 28. The NUJ made it clear that they are against censorship and the General Secretary has explained that it distinguishes between the blacking of articles written by non-members when there is a dispute, and discrimination against particular articles which are contrary to the union's code of conduct.
220
It seems to me from what they have written to Mr. Frank Owens, the Presi- dent of the Guild of British Newspaper Editors, and to Mr. Hetherington, that we can meet many of the fears of the editors towards the NUJ. There are many other matters in the noble Lord's Amendment which we shall need to examine with very great care.
My initial reading of Lord Goodman's Amendment is that he is, in effect, making a substantive statutory right, be-cause Amendment 28 lays on everybody a clear statutory duty to comply with the provisions of the charter. Breach of the duty seems to be actionable whether or not it arises from industrial action, which is given a very wide meaning in Amendment 29. I would be rash if I now made more than a general comment on what is obviously a very complex piece of drafting, which could well on further examination raise some important legal questions. But I have to ask whether noble Lords, including the movers of the Amendment, are certain that the way to achieve the aim of Press freedom is really to insist on legal provisions of this kind.
I therefore hope very much that Lord Goodman will reconsider his Amendment —and I am willing to have further discussions with him—because it seems to be changing the idea of a Code or Charter into something very different. It is per-haps not unfair to say that it is using the concept of the Code or Charter to make basic changes in the law. I hope that particularly in the light of developments over the week-end, the noble Lord will give further consideration to his Amendment.
What should we do this evening? I have expressed a cordial welcome to the Amendment of my noble friend. It was not one that we had in mind; but it seems to provide a base on which we may be able to build and to extend certain of the provisions of the noble Lord's Amendment at a later stage of the Bill in order to meet some of the points that the noble Lord has in mind. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will agree to accept the Amendment of my noble friend on that basis.
To the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, I would say that he has moved a very complex Amendment. It raises a number of difficult issues; but I want to say

221
this particularly to him. I believe that there is a real possibility in the Press industry and in the media for finding a solution, an agreement and settlement that is satisfactory to all sides. I cannot conceive of anything better in the interests of the freedom of the Press than that all the guardians of the freedom of the Press could agree. I think that agreement is more likely if we use the time between now and the Third Reading of the Bill to explore, examine and negotiate an agreement within the industry.
The noble Lord is a very determined man. I will not call him " Mr. Fixer "— although I gather that to some he is known as such—but he has undoubted ability to bring different sides together to find a solution. If the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, could set his heart and mind to this, then, so far as the Government are concerned, we shall do all we can to help. I hope that the noble Lord and this Committee will believe that the freedom of the Press depends on the guardians of all sections of the Press working towards that agreement. I believe it is possible; I believe we should use Lord Houghton's Amendment as the basis. I am still optimistic that a solution can be found.
6.40 p.m.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: Many references have been made in this debate to the 1971 Industrial Relations Act. I should like to call the attention of the Committee to some of the problems that the Labour Government of 1964-70 had to face with their industrial disputes legislation. I agree with my Party in many respects, but I never could be convinced" that Mr. Harold Wilson, our Prime Minister in the 1964–70 Parliament, was wise in trying to force certain aspects of industrial legislation down the throats of the trade unions. It seems to me a self-evident truth that if a law is passed in such a form that an individual railwayman, miner or engineer refused to obey it and, in consequence, a fine was imposed that from that follows imprisonment if there is a refusal to pay the fine, then you need only have one railwayman, engineer or miner jailed, and you have the whole industry out. I thought in that 1964–70 Parliament we should have learned the lesson that there are some areas in industrial relations that you cannot deal with by
222
legal methods. It is much more complicated than that.
It seems to me sheer madness for any-one now to think that we can solve the extremely complicated relationships between newspaper proprietors, editors, journalists and the rest by enforcing law over the whole field. It can be done over certain parts, yes—because, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said, there are historical issues involved. If I may say so, I thought the most eloquent part of his speech came when he talked about the struggle by which the trade union movement had achieved the right to exist at all, and when he talked about the right to have any kind of freedom of the Press. These are great historical issues, and therefore we approach this problem differently on either side of the Committee.
Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, cares passionately about the freedom of the Press. Nothing could seem to him, or to the rest of us, more barbaric than that anyone should be pre-vented from writing or talking freely. But what do we mean by the " freedom of the Press"? Do we mean the freedom of a limited number of newspaper proprietors to have things all their own way? The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said that they do not get everything their own way nowadays, and that they do not even try. He said that it is now the editor who can fly freely. I hear noises on my left: I do not want to embarrass anyone, but I think that anyone in this Committee who has had the experience of editing a paper knows perfectly well that editors are not self-employed and do not operate in a vacuum. One does not expect, for instance, the editor of the Daily Telegraph to put the Communist point of view very eloquently or adequately, and one does not expect the editor of the Morning Star to put the Conservative point of view very eloquently or adequately.
I agree that one thing we have in this country, which is precious, is a number of different newspapers. Unfortunately, they are becoming fewer. There is no such thing as an abstract and complete freedom of the Press. Of course there will be pressures from the people who give the money; of course there will be pressures, direct or indirect, from newspaper owners. Of course there will be pressures from journalists. All that is

223
happening now is that in journalism, as in everything else, the men and women who are earning their living there are insisting on having a larger say than they have had in the past. Perhaps in an imperfect world the best we can hope for is to have a diversity of newspapers. I should like to see a greater diversity than we have now.
You can be relatively complacent if you are a sound Tory, because you get a very good share of the Press; the Communist Party manages to keep a daily newspaper, but the poor old Labour movement has never been able to keep a newspaper. Perhaps one of the reasons why the Daily Herald went under was that some of the same restrictions, operating in every other newspaper, operated there. And the point of view with which I have been associated with all my life, and which I still hold, never had a very big say in any official Labour journal! So it is just as well to keep in mind that there are differences of view within Parties, as well as between Parties, and the nearest we can get to making this abstract phrase "the freedom of the Press" a reality is by having as much diversity as possible.
Because I think along those lines, I would most certainly not want to see the National Union of Journalists having a monolithic control over the entire Press; and the British public would not stand for that. But there is no indication, so far as I can see, that the National Union of Journalists is so out of touch with reality that it is asking for any such privilege. It is asking that there should not be fragmentation. As my noble friend Lord Douglass of Cleveland, who knows so much about this subject, said, the fellows earning their living nowadays try to put into practice the song we all sang and the slogan on the banners we marched behind—" Solidarity for ever ". Union is strength, and we know the price we have paid in the past; first, when no union at all was allowed, and then when small struggling unions came into existence.
Much admiration has been given to the American system, where there is the industrial union. We did the Germans proud after the Second World War, because we gave them a brand new trade
224
union movement along the lines of industrial unionism. We have a different system in this country. We have a lot of social furniture inherited from the past and any trade union leader has an extremely difficult, complex and sensitive job to do in dealing with the different interests within his union, as well as between unions. Therefore, remembering the experience of the 1964–70 Labour Government, and much as I admire the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman—and usually he manages to convince me—I am not convinced that we shall promote freedom of the Press by trying to make certain matters in this difficult area compulsory by law.
The most hopeful aspect of the situation is that the National Union of Journalists has moved in the last few days, and I hope that the proprietors are also moving. They realise that they can no longer be complete dictators. It is nonsense to think that editors are going to operate in a vacuum. There has to be some kind of modus vivendi nowa-days and I believe that a code of conduct must be voluntary; we have to play it by ear. I have heard my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment say to others that he would be. prepared to consider the position not just for six months but even for a year, in order to see whether the noble Lords, Lord Goodman, Lord Houghton and others could get together and work out a code of practice which would make it possible for us to have at least the maxi-mum diversity in freedom. The National Union of Journalists said just the other day:
" The Union also want to consider creating a special form of membership for specialists writers and others who at present are not eligible for full union membership."
So I take it that the situation is that if you are earning your living as a journalist you belong to the National Union of Journalists, and if you are a specialist writer and earn only part of your living that way you will not be excluded.
We have very difficult areas here to clarify, but I would say to your Lordships that we ought to have learned from the experience of the 1964–70 Labour Government, when there was an almost permanent divorce between my colleagues on the trade union front and those on the political front. There are certain things

225
which cannot be dealt with by force. I was in America in the Prohibition years, as were many of your Lordships. You may think it is a very good thing and very democratic that the majority of member of a Government decide to do something and then carry it through. But it brings the law into disrepute if, when you are dealing with something which intimiately affects a very large number of people, you try to legislate in a way which will not be implemented.
We all know the difficult problems that have been created in the past by that; we know about the stills, the Mafia and the underground. There is a certain parallel here, and I think that if we were to approach this issue tentatively we would not get a perfect Press. But when you compare what we have with what can be found in any dictatorship, whether it is Fascist or Communist, there is much to be said for our Press, with all its faults. And I wish it would stop giving all those prizes to criminals and brigands and the rest. We need a code of conduct not only for who is to write for the Press but for some of the material that appears in the Press; but perhaps all that can come. However, I am deeply convinced that it will only come tentatively, and it will come only by our feeling our way in those sensitive areas where it is quite clear that something cannot be done by legislation.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: May I make one point to the noble Baroness before she sits down? She wails the demise of the Daily Herald. But is the noble Baroness aware that, so far as I have always been told, the reason why the Daily Herald went out of circulation was that it would not accept any contributions from anyone who was not a member of the National Union of Journalists? That is what I have always understood.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: The only people from whom it did not accept contributions were those who had my political point of view.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: The Daily Herald often published material from people who were not members of the NUJ. It was a question of whether they belonged to the Labour Party or had its views, but not whether they were
226
members of the NUJ. The noble Viscount has it wrong.
Lord ARDWICK: May I add a line as as editor of the Daily Herald at one time? Our regular weekly columnist was Mr. Michael Foot.
6.53 p.m.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: May I begin by thanking my noble friend the Leader of the House for his broad and generous support of the Amendment to which I am now going to speak. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, made, as he nearly always does, if not always, a very scintillating speech which fascinated me, but which, I must admit, did not wholly convince me. I want to take issue with him on a certain number of matters. He said that the Secretary of State—I think these were his words—was obsessed with the trade union aspect of this matter. But I think it fair to say that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, does not pay nearly enough attention to the trade union aspect of this matter which is, after all, in a trade union Bill. It is natural to think of the trade union aspect of problems in such a Bill. I was interested in the point made by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, that we might have special legislation concerning the freedom of the Press in a context separate from this Bill, so that it was not mixed up with trade union matters but could then be thought of in its own right and settled in its own right.
Of course, Lord Goodman is right that there are some aspects of the Press, journalists, broadcasters and so on, which differ from aspects of other work. But there are special aspects of many other industries. One could make something of the same case, or a corresponding case, for many other industries. We cannot discriminate against one or two unions in regard to the closed shop, picking them out from all other unions and all other industries. Certainly we cannot, as Lord Goodman seemed to imply, pick on them because they might have a small majority. That is what the noble Lord said: everything could be settled in the Press by a very small majority because they once had a small majority.
Lord GOODMAN: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but that is not what I said. I said they had a ballot in which there was a vast majority in favour of one

227
course which was set aside by a tiny group of gentlemen by voting with a tiny majority. That is very different. It means that no one is safe to rely on the democratic process of that union, which is a fraud.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: I agree with what the noble Lord said first, but I was concentrating on what he said second, which he seemed gravely to object to and to think very dangerous: that something was settled by a very small majority in the end. If I misunderstand him, I will leave that point. It seemed to me that that was what he said, even when he interrupted me. I thought there was one curious omission in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in that he did not refer at all to the recent resolutions of the executive council of the National Union of Journalists, who voted for the rights of the editor not to join a union, not to be compelled or pressed to do something he does not want, and on excess for outsiders. I may say that our code does the same.
I of course agree with my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal that, if agreement could be obtained by all the parties, it would be the best thing; but the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said there was no chance of agreement. And, after all, although Lord Goodman does not speak for anybody, he kept on saying in his speech, "we", not "I". I think he knows well what are the chances of agreement. I am afraid that the chances of getting what the Lord Privy Seal wanted are rather small. The noble Lord also raised in respect of our Amendment the danger of bringing in the State through the Secretary of State's ultimate duty to impose a code. I fully see that there is great danger of bringing the Government into any kind of industrial matter. On the other hand, it seems to me that it is so important to obtain a code of the kind we want that we ought to have in the Bill some kind of guarantee that it would come about one way or another. If it is thought that six months is not long enough, of course we would all agree to have what-ever my noble friend thought was the proper length of time.
I believe the main issue that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was concerned
228
about was whether a code had the force of law. He objected to ours because it did not, and he wants to amend it in such a way that it would have, at any rate to a greater degree, the force of law. One can also, none the less, criticise his own Amendments in respect of the kind of code that our code would become if these Amendments were carried. There is a limit to what one can do by the force of law in any field, and there is a particular limit to what can be done by the force of law in a trade union field. I do not understand, for instance, how Lord Goodman sees his subsection 17(c) could be enforced. This difficulty applies to the very important Section 28. It seems to me that the only way that a court could enforce its view, if it were defied in respect of an injunction or some such thing, would be to put people in prison. This is always a fatal thing to do. I can-not see how the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has not yet grasped that. If in the last resort one has to put men in prison over an industrial matter—I do not mean other things—it is fatal. It absolutely leads to self-defeat. He would not get what he wanted ; and no one would then ever again take the matter to the court and then this clause—
Lord GOODMAN: I hesitate again to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think we ought to know what he is saying. Is he saying there are no circumstances in which the law should be enforced in order to protect the outraged rights of a citizen by sending somebody to prison? Is that what he is saying?
Lord GORDON-WALKER: No, of course not. If I steal something or if I pickpocket from the noble Lord or if I commit any other such crime, of course I am properly sent to prison, as indeed I am if I drive in a drunken state or do something like that. I am speaking about an industrial trade union matter. It is in that field that we have, by sad experience, learnt that this course does not pay and is not enforceable. Of course, I am not saying—how could he believe I was saying?—what he suggested I was saying. Of course I believe that people should be put in prison when found guilty of offences. I would think the court would have no choice but to put people in prison under the noble Lord's code—it would have no choice if it were defied. But it

229
would not be right; or it would be right in one sense, but highly unwise and imprudent.
As regards the enforcement clause, or the lack of an enforcement clause, in our code, I would point out to noble Lords that the phrase in our code is exactly the same as the phrase in the Code in the 1971 Act. That Act, after all, was the great example of law bursting in upon trade union matters Yet, although the then Government did everything they should not do concerning the Industrial Relations Court and so on, they did not think the code should be given the kind of legal force that the noble Lord. Lord Goodman, wants. May I ask the noble Lord to think about that. Even if the creators of the 1971 Act did not want to give their code enforceability in his sense, it is surely wise not to go in any respect beyond that Act.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, admitted that he is not against the Bill. What he is primarily against is the fact that it does not make special provision for journalists. He is also against the fact that the National Union of Journalists has changed its attitude. Neither of these facts has anything to do with this Bill. In any case, that kind of argument could be applied to all kinds of trade unions. Finally, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that it is clear that both of us want a code. The noble Lord wants a different code, but both of us want a code to go into the Bill. If, however, the noble Lord's charter as he prefers to call it, is passed into law —in other words, if his Amendments are carried—there is great danger—
Lord GOODMAN: If these Amendments are carried in this House.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: Yes; I mean what we are now doing. If that happens, there is great danger that we will have no code and no charter. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, realises that and says that he does not mind if that happens. I hope that noble Lords will not agree with him about this. It is extremely important to get a code which, in all probability, will be acceptable to another place and to the Government, rather than that for the sake of some principle we should get no code at all. If the charter of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is
230
agreed to, there is no hope that the other place will accept it.
Unless a code is put into the Bill in this House, the other place will not be able to discuss any code. This Bill has gone through all the processes that are possible in the other place. Unless, there-fore, we insert a code that is likely to be acceptable to the Government, the other place will be unable to incorporate a code into this Bill. If the charter of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, were agreed to, there would be the same result because they would have no choice but to reject it; then there would not be a code in the Bill which the other place could accept. Of course, our code is a com-promise, and various noble Lords will have different views about it. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has fairly strong views. It is a compromise; therefore, not everybody will agree about it. How-ever, I submit to your Lordships that this is a case where one should consider that four-fifths of a loaf are better than no loaf at all.
7.3 p.m.
Lord SNOW: May I begin by making a small declaration of interest; namely, that occasionally I contribute to news-papers in this country without being a member of a trade union. It is not a very significant matter in my personal affairs, but I thought I should mention it. Although we all pay great tribute to the noble efforts of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby and my noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker, I must say that they do not remove the fears which I feel and which are felt by many of the people for whom I am speaking tonight. The real problem is one that has been touched upon but which Government spokesmen generally either gloss over or alternatively do not understand—I am never quite sure which; namely, that although it is true what journalists are part of an industry, they are also some-thing entirely different. They are very different from most of the similar examples which we can bring forward.
The general organisation, in the shape of unions, of persons from particular activities leads to some rather curious results. As your Lordships may have noticed, one of those rather curious results is the National Union of Students; they are considerably different from the

231
National Union of Mineworkers. For example, if they go on strike it does not matter. In fact, it is clear and definite that their nominal reason for becoming a union has nothing to do with their function in society. In a certain sense, there is an analogy with the National Union of Journalists. One part of their function, one part of their activity, has no relationship whatever to industrial structure; it depends upon what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has called " the written word ", and the written word really does matter.
Although I do not like the word " freedom ", if we do not safeguard the freedom of the written word, and if we do not safeguard the part that it plays in our lives, it will be very easy to descend to a kind of moral squalor which is not unknown in the world and which could just as easily happen here. That is the reason for the sense of outrage which a number of persons who are known to your Lordships have felt about the treatment of this issue by the Government. It is the strongest single example of dissension from Labour policies which I have known in people who are, by tradition and by experience, wedded to them. I will try to mention to your Lordships some of the people who have felt most strongly this sense of outrage within the last three or four months—who have felt not only the lack of sensitivity, because they are used to living in a rough world, but the lack of even a rudimentary insight into what the problem is.
The first persons who have been professionally concerned are four of the most respected editors in London. All of them are men who are not illiberal; all of them are deeply respected in the profession. Their jobs do not depend upon this; their positions are secure. If necessary, there are many parts of the world where they can practise their vocation. Although the Government never seem to have realised it, they feel this need just as passionately as trade unionists feel their addiction to the closed shop. Unless that is made clear, we are talking like imbeciles.
The second group of people who feel this need just as strongly are the editors of professional journals, who, for various reasons, are almost always Labour sympathisers. The third group of people—
232
here I am closer to my home ground— is the Society of Authors. None of the people who are concerned in the Society of Authors depends upon this for a penny. What they feel is that this is something which just cannot happen. One cannot have unions, however noble, dictating who or who should not be allowed to write in newspapers. It is a fundamental freedom that there must be a chance for Bernard Shaw and Walter Lippmann—people who were always on the periphery of journal-ism—to say their piece.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: Would the noble Lord agree that the National Union of Journalists has said exactly the same things as he is saying now, and that it is a " bogey " which he is trying to put forward?
Lord SNOW: I shall come to that in one minute. When one is making a speech, one does not forget these things. In no circumstances that I can envisage could Walter Lippmann have fitted into any conceivable union structure in this country, yet he was probably the most influential journalist of our time. The fourth group of people are more important still. They are some of the most distinguished pub-licists in this country, and one name that I shall pick out is that of Mr. J. B. Priestley. He has probably done more than any politician in the country to make acceptable Labour Governments of our present type. His influence, of both strength and fundamental good nature, has, from his early books to his wartime broadcasts and so on, been very strong indeed. He is as horrified about this as he is about anything in his political experience.
Hard-baked persons in Government can say, perfectly rightly, that this does not matter at all; this is not a matter of social forces; the number of persons concerned is trivial, and so on. I would say to them that that is a profound misjudgment. People who do not control votes, or mass forces or large organisations often form opinions which filter underground and in the long run have a decisive effect on human activity. I believe this indifference or unawareness of what a very large number of persons whom I will call inde-pendent writers are thinking, has been a quite extraordinary, and to me inexplicable, mistake. I know that the noble

233
Lord, Lord Houghton, is trying to do something to rectify that position which has done great harm. I assure my noble friends on this side of the House that they probably do not realise what harm it has done. I have heard more bitter comments on this than anything since the last War.
Baroness LEE of ASHERIDGE: My noble friend mentioned Walter Lippmann, J. B. Priestley, and others. Was he making an assessment before the statement made by the National Union of Journalists, when, as I said earlier, the union wanted to consider creating a special form of membership for specialist writers and others who at present are not eligible for full union membership? Would not J. B. Priestley, Walter Lippmann and others be eligible for full union membership? Would not J. B. Priestley, Walter Lippmann and others be eligible under that category?
Lord SNOW: That is the question which the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, has already asked me. It is not something which anybody making this speech would be likely to forget. This is a prospective fear, it is not a present fear. As far as I can judge, Mr. Ken Morgan has behaved throughout with admirable composure, very eloquently and with good sense. Of course, the statements of the National Union of Journalists' Executive have been noticed by everyone concerned. The people con-cerned are used to reading ; that is their life and they read quite carefully. But they know, very much more than Governments, how very rapidly these things can change. Normally they have travelled more and have lived in a number of countries and within ten years have seen perfectly decent societies and professional bodies of writers, and so on, pass into a drug-like sheltered state. It is not the present that we are thinking about; it is what is possible. Again, it is quite likely that this is only a small chance. But sane men do not take small chances about big risks and dangers. That is the problem.
Everyone I know agrees that at the moment the National Union of Journalists has an Executive which, in the main, would agree with most of the points we are making tonight. We all say that perhaps these things will not happen. But we have lived in this world. I have
234
written to at least ten countries in Europe, and, in fact, we have seen with our own eyes how very easily things can slide unless there is one fundamental value, which is the value we are trying to preserve tonight. I have tried to get such comfort as I can—and it is very little—by asking friends from other countries how they manage their affairs. This is not a purely parochial matter but one which is common to every country in the Western World, and. in a backhanded way, to the Eastern World, too. I usually turn for counsel here to my Swedish friends who, on the whole, have developed the most highly articulated industrial organisation in Europe and the one which works the best, and whom no one can accuse of lacking respect for the major literary values. Unfortunately, there is a slight difference, because there is no closed shop in Sweden. Obviously I accept the closed shop as an historical fact, but it means that the Swedish analogy does not vork. They say that such difficulties are quite unthinkable. An editor in Sweden would normally belong to a union, but he has by tradition the kind of power that is, in some ways, rather greater than English editors would have. Since there is no closed shop the right to have out-side contributors does not arise. There is no problem there.
I confess that I can sec no easy comparisons, no easy remedies. But the important point is that we realise that there is a real danger, the final danger. We must not think that everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, that this country has a sacred dispensation for things always to go right and that in five years we shall all think this is an absurd scare. The matter is so important that I would far rather be over-anxious at this time than under-anxious. If the thing is once really guarded against then it is probably irreversible. We have seen that elsewhere. Therefore, if it comes to a vote, I shall vote for the charter proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on the grounds not I think that four-fifths of a loaf is better than no bread but that one-tenth of a loaf is better than no bread, which is rather more the correct approximation.
But I confess I feel slightly that the wisdom of Sam Goldwyn enters. He once said that an oral agreement is not

235
worth the paper it is written on. I have something of the same feeling about charters which are, in fact, expressions of good will. So I have no comfort. I am trying to speak for people with no political influence whatever who would, on the whole, be on this side of the Committee rather than on the other, but who feel most deeply on this matter, are really distressed and would work to help if there is the faintest possibility of producing either an agreed solution or one which is gently imposed.
7.18 p.m.
The Earl of DROGHEDA: I shall not make a speech, because I think that most of the remarks I would have made have already been made. I think your Lord-ships should realise the very great depth of feeling on this matter on the part of the editors of virtually all the national and the provincial Press, many periodicals and the editors of the broadcasting media. I have the greatest respect for these people. They do not speak with one voice at all; they have the most diverse political views and this is the first time in my recollection that I have seen a group of people come together feeling so deeply and strongly about anything. It may well be that their fears are ground-less, in which case I cannot see that one is giving very much away by letting them have some kind of legal recognition of their special position. The noble Lord the Leader of the House spoke about the possibility of discussions between now and the next stage of the Bill, and he said that something could be evolved. I very much hope that this will happen without our having to wait for six months, a year or longer for some code to be drawn up.
Finally, I should like to remind your Lordships of the existence of a union which has not been referred to at all; namely, the Institute of Journalists, which was registered in 1890 and is 20 years older than the National Union of Journalists. Although it has quite a number of members, they are few relative to the NUJ. It is certainly a union which would have to be recognised—or whatever the expression is—and be a specified union in the event that we come to that. But this union plays a major role and is registered under the 1974 Act.
Lord PANNELL: The noble Lord, Lord Snow, referred to the Goldwynism that " oral agreements are not worth the paper they are written on ". He cannot have known the history of the fair wages clause which is now quoted up and down the land in every court. But there is no statutory force behind that clause. It is just a statement by George Isaacs in the House as to what fair wages should be. Nobody can plead against the fair wages clause.
I want to refer to only one point which has not so far been mentioned. In a Bill which gives the right of the closed shop to over 10 million trade unionists, one cannot outlaw 30,000 journalists. A great many journalists will see in this Bill a great many things that they desire. The opponents of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, are the kind of people who want to outlaw journalists completely from the benefits of a closed shop—there is no question at all about that.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: If I may interrupt my noble friend, I said specifically that that was not the case. I said that quite specifically and as clearly as I could speak, which is generally quite clearly.
Lord PANNELL: The noble Lord did speak quite clearly but I still say, having studied the Bill, that the effect of the further Amendments is to put the National Union of Journalists outside the benefits of the Bill. There is no question about that, and if it is followed to its logical conclusion, instead of five dockers going to jail there will be five journalists.
Lord SHEPHERD: If I may intervene for a moment, one of the great difficulties in your Lordships' House, because we have no Speaker, is that noble Lords cannot always see who is standing up to speak, but I know that my noble friend Lord Brockway has been struggling to get in for quite some time and I wonder whether—
Lord FLETCHER: I was about to preface my few remarks by saying that I very rarely speak or trouble your Lord-ships, and in this case I intend to speak for only a very few minutes. My own feeling is that it is most unfortunate that in this debate we should be considering

237
two totally different things: one, good industrial (relations and, secondly, the freedom of the Press. I consider both to be important, although personally I happen to think the freedom of the Press is more important. Good industrial relaations affect those who are engaged in that particular industry; the freedom of the Press is one of our greatest national heritages—something of which we are all very proud and which affects not only those engaged in the preparation of newspapers but all citizens of this country; and the reason why considerable concern has been expressed in a great many quarters about this Bill is because it is feared, rightly or wrongly, that the freedom of the Press is in jeopardy.
I think that has been recognised in some of the speeches we have heard today, and in particular by the Secretary of State during the Third Reading in another place when he said that if, contrary to what he thought, the freedom of the Press was jeopardised by this Bill the Government would consider taking some steps to remedy that situation. That seems to me to be a complete fallacy. We are not concerned here today with establishing the freedom of the Press; we are concerned with preserving the freedom of the Press as it is in this country today, imperfect though it may be, and we have to face the fact that a great many people of varying shades of opinion, intelligence, education and outlook are quite genuinely and seriously concerned that if the Bill is enacted in its present form that historic freedom of the Press will be in jeopardy.
It is quite untrue, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Pannell, to pose as a question that one cannot deny to a certain number of journalists the closed shop provisions which are being given to 10 million or 12 million other people. That may be one incidental effect of the Bill but it is not its purpose and object. It may be one unfortunate side effect of the Bill, but even so, in my opinion it is much less serious than the fear of a great many people that the freedom of the Press will be jeopardised.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that I am not very impressed with either the proposed code or the proposed charter. My own preference
238
would be for the simple Amendment which was moved earlier to exclude journalists and editors from the provisions of this Bill in so far as it is a Bill dealing with industrial relations. Granted that there will be a necessity to deal with them at some time, I would have hoped that common sense would suggest to the Government, in view of the concern felt, that for the time being there should be excluded from this Bill any provisions relating to journalists or a closed shop in journalism, and not attempt, in a hurried, rushed atmosphere to produce either a code or a charter, about either of which it is quite obvious from the speeches that have been made today that a great deal more thought is required than anybody has yet been able to give to it. I hope that such a code or charter can be worked out in some agreed form that is acceptable not only to those intimately con-cerned, but also acceptable to the nation as a whole—the general public—who do not seem to me to be particularly represented in these meetings which are con-templated. If that is worked out satisfactorily, it will not be a difficult matter to have a short Bill (if it is so desired) giving this particular industry the same recognition and the same provisions about the closed shop as the Government are now suggesting on the not very realistic grounds of consistency.
The real justification, as has been put forward in another place and here, and by my noble friend just now, for including journalists and editors in this Bill about industrial relations, with all the damage that may be done to the freedom of the Press, is on the arid doctrinaire ground of consistency. That does not seem to be a good reason. If after a code or charter has been worked out it is still found desirable to amend this Bill by bringing in journalists, so be it, but I hope that the Government will reflect seriously on what has been said in this debate today and will be influenced by the generally sincerely-felt expressions of opinion throughout the country about the editors and the freedom of the Press that are inherent in the Bill as it now stands.
7.29 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: In every speech that has been made during this debate reference has been made to the National

239
Union of Journalists. Indeed, its attitude, its actions and its relation to free-dom of speech has been the dominant theme throughout the whole of the debate. Therefore, I think it appropriate that before the debate ends some expression should be given to this Com-mittee of the views of members of the National Union of Journalists. I must declare an interest. I joined the National Union of Journalists in 1910, and I am still a fully paid-up member.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: They ought to give the noble Lord life membership!
Lord BROCKWAY: I do not wish to address the Committee just to express my own personal views. This morning I discussed with the General Secretary of our union, Mr. Kenneth Morgan, the attitude of the union to the Amendments which we are now discussing. Mr. Morgan pointed out that the National Union of Journalists, like all trade unions, has a philosophic objection to State control, and that the union itself did not desire a State-imposed code of ethics. Never-theless, Mr. Morgan went on to say that in the first paragraph of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, there is encouragement to the unions and the employers to get together and to work out a code of ethical conduct which both would accept. Mr. Morgan said that that was welcome, and that any State intervention would occur only if there were failure in that agreement between workers and employers. He quite evidently thought that agreement could be reached. He said finally that he regarded the Amend-ment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. as a reasonable Amendment, and one with which the union could live. I think the General Secretary of our union had real grounds for saying that an agreement could be reached between the organisations of the workers and of the employers, to maintain the freedom of the Press.
I had intended to read to the Committee the charter of a code of ethics adopted by our union last weekend. It is a quite remarkable document, not merely declaring in principle for the freedom of the Press, but entering into detail as to how such freedom might be maintained. I am
240
not reading it only because of the lateness of the hour. I hope that Members of this Committee will see the document for themselves. It is one of the most remark-able documents that any trade union has ever issued. The very fact that the NUJ has endorsed such a plea for the freedom of the Press is surely ground for hoping that, as suggested in paragraph (1) of this Amendment, an agreement could be reached with their employers which would guarantee that freedom.
One or two other specific points were raised in the debate. The fear has been expressed by a recent speaker of pressure on editors, perhaps even intimidation. During the last weekend, the executive of our union declared quite clearly that the NUJ accepts free choice to the editor— properly defined as the person having legal responsibility for a publication— on whether he wishes to be a member of the union. The union is no longer insisting that every editor must be a member.
Fear has been expressed that the application of the closed shop to a newspaper would mean that those who are contributing to it would be prohibited from so doing unless they were members of the union. Last weekend our executive made our position quite clear on that. Our executive stated the commitment to
"free access to the Press for any person, con-sonant with the protection of the employment of the NUJ members."
Surely, there are two spheres of contribution here. There is the journalist who is entirely engaged for a livelihood on his newspaper, and there is the specialist who contributes feature articles. The NUJ desires that that situation shall continue.
In the last few weeks, the National Union of Journalists has been very badly misrepresented. There is no one who desires the freedom of the Press more than the working journalists. For that reason, as the General Secretary of our union indicated, the union welcomes the Amend-ment which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has introduced.
Baroness GAITSKELL: I came here today with the express intention of voting for the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. It is still my intention, although I may say that after listening to many of the speeches I have become more and more worried. I should

241
like to support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Houghton, because I have great faith in his wisdom. He is a very wise man. I also support it because the Guardian has been particularly good on this question. In yesterday's leader column in the Guardian, it was pro-posed that we should go "softly, softly" on this.
I am in support of this Amendment because I see it as the only possibility for conciliation in this matter, and not because I am not passionately in favour of the freedom of the Press, which I do not understand as having anything very much to do with the industrial relations Bill. The irony of this is that when we were discussing the 1971 Industrial Relations Act, which was very complicated and which we opposed very strongly, there was the code of practice, which was a very small code and was so simple that any child could have under-stood it. I said that any child might have written it, it was so full of good intentions; it certainly had no teeth. It was compared with the Highway Code. These easy comparisons of codes, charters and the Highway Code convince me very little.
When I think of the freedom of the Press, I think of it in both national and international contexts. The freedom of the Press was well expressed by the Guardian today. I do not know whether noble Lords noticed, but the Guardian reported the verdict of a judge with which they greatly disagreed. The judge had reduced compensation to some children from £10,000 to £2,000. Then the judge —and I suppose this is what we call natural justice, or whatever we were talking about yesterday for so long—having reduced the amount from £10,000 to £2,000 added that the Press must not report it. The Guardian reported it. This is what the freedom of the Press means; it means just that. Noble Lords cannot really convince me that anything short of that is freedom.
Of course we do not like everything that newspapers write on the various subjects in which we are passionately interested; of course we disagree with them. All the same, let us consider if we did not have it, but instead we had what they have in Russia, or in Yugo-slavia where recently there occurred the case of a man who has been imprisoned
242
for eight years because he published a small pamphlet. So when noble Lords talk about freedom of the Press as being only part of the Industrial Relations Bill, I really do not know what they are talking about; that is the truth. When the Press exercises freedom in the way that the Guardian exercised it today, against the law, against something that was expressed by a judge, that is the kind of freedom I can understand; not as in the United Nations, when people talk not of freedom of information but development of freedom of information, not of freedom of the Press but development of freedom of the Press. We know what we under-stand by "freedom of the Press". So as I say, I will support my noble friend's Amendment, because I see it as the beginning; it is a hope for some kind of way out of this dilemma which we have got into by mixing up industrial action with freedom of information.
7.45 p.m.
Lord RHODES: I must confess that I am still not satisfied. I have heard practically all that has been said through the two debates. I feel a bit tensed up about it. I feel as much tensed up about it as I did in my 'teens when I was sacked for helping form a union branch at the place where I worked. In those days we were remedying, or trying to remedy, social injustice of a sort that ran deep in some of us in the Colne Valley district of Yorkshire. I ran with papers for Victor Grayson in an Election pre-World War I, when my father was warned that if I ran again he would be sacked. My sincerity about this has been matched by the Minister. I do not previously remember Lord Shepherd expressing what he felt in so sincere a way as he has done tonight, and I am perfectly certain that somewhere behind what he said we are groping for a solu-tion. I was sacked again, for a second time, as an employer, when I came back from World War I, after being two and a half years in hospital after the war was over. There was a slump on. When I went for my old job back they said, " Don't you know there's a slump on? Don't you know about the unemployment? " I did not. For two and a half years I had lived the secluded life in a hospital of a patient suffering from war wounds. I went round for a job on two sticks.

243
I was made a capitalist whether I liked it or not, because I had to start my own business to keep myself going. That is where it all began. But some of us came under the influence of very important people. The important person that I remember was Seebohm Rowntree, and if your Lordships had ever read his Treatise on the poor of York I guarantee that you would have been, like me, moved to take some action. By then I had got a work force. I read his book on a Sunday, and on the Monday morning I called a meeting of my workpeople and said : " How many come under this category? " You will remember, those who have read the Treatise, the different categories related in it, spinsters who had to pay rent for a house and all that sort of thing. I raised my wages that week, and for it I was sacked out of the employers' association. So on one occasion I was sacked for asking for more money and on the second occasion I was sacked for paying more money. You cannot do right, can you?
We have got a kind of consensus coming through now, after we have been immersed in the debate for so long. Two strange things come out of it, as a kind of recurring theme or themes. One was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, during the Second Reading debate, and it has been mentioned, once yesterday and once today, by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, and that I would like some comment on, in reply. The feeling that we have, according to what has been said, is that you cannot make a law stick, not so much because it would be a bad law but because it would not be acceptable to a militant minority.
The other thing which comes through was raised by Lord Greene. He went to considerable pains to instruct this House in where the strength of the trade union movement lay, and it was on the shop floor. He said it last week and he said it yesterday. The nub of what we are talking about is that it is possible for a militant minority to grab power. We have seen it everywhere. Have not we seen the power riven away from the Commons by militant minorities? Of course we have, during this last 15 months; during and ever since the miners' strike of the winter of 1973–74 it has gone
244
on. Take notice of what you are doing because this industry is quite different from any other. There is not another industry which moulds public opinion like the newspaper industry.
Some years ago I made a visit to Japan and was asked to speak at the Anglo-Japanese club in Osaka. I sat next to Baron Mitsui. He hissed to me during the lunch: " Why have you come to Japan "? I said, " To find out where power lies, Sir ". He said, " Power is in the hills, but the difficulty is to know which hill to climb ". The old so-and-so! So I said, " All the more important, Sir, that I should have a good guide ". So he hissed through his teeth with pleasure, and I knew it had registered. Nothing happened for a fortnight. Then I was waylaid at Canon Camera Co. The manager went a pale yellow when he knew who was waiting in an office at the side of the lens polishing department. He said, " Five gentlemen wish to speak to you ". I will not mention their names because they are members of the Zaibatsui, great industrial figures. Enough to say that five men sat there like sphynxes and I might just as well have been in a witness box because they said, " We want to ask you a question ". I said "What is it?" They said, " Why is it that we have not got public opinion in Japan like you have in England? "
Now let everybody think about how they would answer such a question. You can go through all the gamut of how we arrived at our democracy and what has been done about it since. You can say that the aristocracy, when they found they were losing out to democracy, allowed their younger sons to stand on the hustings for Parliament. So I had no more wit than to say, " Why not allow your sons to stand for Parliament?" One of them said, " Ah, no! We could not afford to be turned down. You see, 20 years ago, if we had been turned down it would have been considered an insult and we would have had to commit hari-kari ". So I went through the various reasons until we came to this one (I have been reserving this!) and I said, "You own all the newspapers." They said, " Yes, we do ". I said, " How do you expect to have a public opinion if you own all the newspapers and you do not allow controversy in them?" They said,

245
"Is that what creates public opinion, con-troversy? " I told them that was my opinion.
Now they asked me these questions be-cause of something that had happened two years before, when 300 students did the snake dance in front of the Diet and tipped out the Prime Minister of the day. To turn that round the other way, if you stifle controversy then you have the dangerous minority who can come in and usurp authority which has taken hundreds of years to create in this country. I have brought specially from my locker my great, great, great uncle's diary from which I thought would quote. My distant relative was the originator of the first handloom weavers' union. He was a chartist at the same time as Hardy of Tiverton, Fielding of Todmorden and many others. His great principle was that men of scruples should be listened So be-cause by meeting men of scruples half way you can hammer out something that is of benefit to the community as a whole.
I have often said that to create a community takes as long as it does to grow a tree. But it takes a damn sight longer to create a public opinion that is worth anything than growing any tree. Do not let us do anything to undermine it.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COM-MITTEES (Lord Douglas of Barloch): Since Amendment No. 14 was moved, an Amendment to that Amendment has been moved:
"In subsection (1), line 6, after (" em-ployers ") insert (" editors and such editors' organisations ").
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I do not want to make a speech, but it would help some of us to know what is going on. The noble Lord in the Chair was perfectly right to put the Question, but I should like to know what is going to happen, and only the mover of the Amendment to the Amendment can tell us. So far he has observed an absolutely discreet silence, but perhaps he will say some-thing before we die!
Lord GOODMAN: To prevent a national disaster, I have been provoked to speak. I shall make a few observations on what has been said and then I should like to address a direct inquiry to the Leader of the House. I do not intend to make another speech.
A noble Lord: Hear! Hear!
Lord GOODMAN: Everybody has expressed their views. There are one or two things which I did not deal with in opening. One is the total misapprehension that we are seeking to bring the law into this matter. The law has been brought into this matter by the Government, not by us. The law has been brought in by the simple fact that by the Act there was a change in circum-stances which did not previously obtain, and it is on that account that we are seeking to restore a situation so as to preserve rights that were imperilled by this change in the law. It is important to make that point because, with tears streaming down my cheeks, I notice for the first time ever there might have been some division between myself and my beloved Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge. I hope she will go away tonight and reflect on the fact that she has totally misunderstood the situation. The situation is not that we are bringing the law into the matter, but that the law has been brought into the matter and we are trying to rectify the situation.
The other point I should like to mention is the absolute obsession about not having anything to do with the court. I cannot explain this. I can under-stand the resentments that were aroused by the Industrial Relations Act and I can understand the feelings about the court; whether or not they were justified is irrelevant. But is it really believed that in society today we can continue to live in safety and under the rule of law if we proscribe the courts as the instrument to protect our rights? Can that seriously be put forward as an argument by the major political Party in the country? Are we to be prevented from appealing to the courts? And what other expedient is possible? The suggestion that, if we do appeal to the courts, the ultimate remedy is something so horrible that we have to withdraw from the possibility and have to abdicate everybody's rights, seems to me to be the best formula for anarchy that anyone has yet devised.
I do not hesitate for a moment in saying that, if we have to invoke the courts, we have to invoke the courts. I speak as a lawyer, but if I were not a lawyer I should say exactly the same things in more emphatic terms. If somebody can

247
find a better way to enforce a person's rights than by going to the courts, I shall be glad to hear it. We were told that the courts had done terrible things to the trade unions. I do not believe that that is true. I believe that if one made a study of trade union law one would surprisingly find the reverse to be the case. Over the years, what have the courts done? They have preserved the country from slavery, they have preserved women from bondage, they have secured personal liberty for anyone to walk in the streets. The idea that we, as a Legislature, should exile the courts on the basis that they did something offensive in relation to trade union procedure seems to me not so much preposterous as totally ill-advised and something that we shall withdraw from in no time at all when ordinary, reason-able counsels prevail.
I am completely unapologetic about leaving the courts in, and I would invite those responsible members of the trade union movement to consider whether their attitude is a possible one to continue with and whether they should not make their peace with the courts as early as possible. They might perhaps point out that some change in the method of selecting judges —a matter over which I have had ex-changes in the past with distinguished Lord Chancellors—might be a sensible way of dealing with the thing, but it is not sensible to say that there is no rule of law and that we cannot use it.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, made a spirited defence of the National Union of Journalists. I have never attacked the National Union of Journalists. This is a highly respectable and responsible union and it is full of very worthy people who are doing a good job. What I have said is that it is un-believable that we should entrust to the National Union of Journalists, or any other organisation of that size or a hundred times that size, the right to decide who publishes works in newspapers. That is quite a different matter. It is not a question of an offensive remark about the National Union of Journalists. It shows an utter want of proportion to consider it even possible that any single organisation whatever—be it a trade union, be it the Law Society, be it a proprietors union, be it an association of millionaires, be it whatever your Lordships like—
Lord CASTLE: Would the noble Lord give us chapter and verse for any declara-tion by the National Union of Journalists that it wants to determine what appears in newspapers?
Lord GOODMAN: I gave the noble Lord chapter and verse on my last appearance, if I may so describe it. I gave him plenty of chapter and verse. I will now tell the House the lamentable story of Mr. Robinson of the Financial Times and I shall produce the same exhibit. The story is a very simple one, and I will tell him some other stories too.
Lord CASTLE: The noble Lord made a declaration that the National Union of Journalists wanted to determine—and this is presumably by resolution of its National Conference of its Executive— what appears in the newspapers. It has never done any such thing.
Lord GOODMAN: It is a very late hour and the noble Lord can be forgiven for mishearing. I should never blame him for not listening very carefully to anything I was saying. However, what 1 did say was that it was madness to entrust such a power to a union. I did not say that they were claiming it. I do not necessarily believe that they are asking for it, though there were very significant signs that they were getting a power complex. What the noble Lord, Lord Snow, said was totally and admirably true: even if there is the faintest scintilla of a risk that this might happen, why should we take it? Why should we take it with anything as precious as the right we are debating here tonight? And there is more than a scintilla of a risk. What the noble Lord has done—merci-fully for your Lordships—is to make me forbear from again telling your Lord-ships the story of Mr. Robinson of the Financial Times. May I say that I could tell you a great many other equally horrible stories in relation to the pro-posed exercise of power by the National Union of Journalists, but, as I say, it is not a question of the National Union of Journalists. It is not a question of any particular organisation. It is simply that we must not entrust this particular right to any organisation.
I would again address the noble Baroness, Lady Lee: it is not a question

249
of those who are moving the Amendment wanting to procure legal rights for the first time. It is that we want to pre-serve the status quo and that, in order to do so, we have to deal with the changed situation that has been brought about by this legislation by a pure side issue. 1 do not think that the Secretary of State intended it, but it has happened and it is necessary that we should defend the position and restore it.
My direct question to the Leader of the House is this: I do not want to divide the Committee tonight, if that is avoidable. I do not want the noble Lord to say anything in unduly encouraging terms, and I am not trying to draw anything out of him which will commit him, but if the noble Lord will say that, in his view, and having heard the debate and what I have had to say, he believes that there is a prospect of an arrangement being reached after discussions between us, I would ask for no further commitment than that and I would withdraw my Amendment, reserving the right to restore it on Report or on Third Reading. If the noble Lord says that to me, I shall be very happy to withdraw the Amendment, because I have already said how reluctant I am that this issue should be determined by the power of a political vote.
8.7 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: The noble Lord will remember that in my speech I said that the Amendment before the Committee in its present form was unaccept-able to the Government. I also said that this was a provisional view, as it was a very complex Amendment. I am sure that the noble Lord, on reflection, while he spoke with great strength on the need for this series of Amendments, spent very little time—if any time at all—on the detailed parts of the series of Amendments which he put before us. I do not criticise, but this is a fact. I could not give an undertaking that what the noble Lord is seeking can be achieved and that the Government could accept all that the noble Lord has put forward. But I believe that there is sufficient ground to believe that men of good will who wish to see the freedom of the Press could, if given time, find an agreement. I believe that to be so.
What worries me, and what I said in my speech and what I would ask the
250
noble Lord to consider in deciding whether to withdraw the Amendment, is that much of the series of Amendments, in some way, puts a pre-condition upon discussions. I think that this is nearly always undesirable. I can say to the noble Lord only that, if we can be given time, I believe that an agreement can be found. I hope that it can. Certainly, any good offices that I can use in your Lordships' House I would use, but I could not give the commitment for which the noble Lord is asking. If I did, it would be very unfair to your Lordships' House. I could not give that commitment but this one undertaking I will give: I will do anything I can—and this is a wise House which has many resources and many tentacles going in different directions—to find an agreement, and I am certain that we could find it if we had the leadership of the noble Lord. Lord Goodman.
Lord GOODMAN: This is one of the rare occasions when flattery is unlikely to change my viewpoint. What I will say to the noble Lord the Leader of the House is that I did not ask him for a commitment. I think that he has said what I wanted to hear; that is, that he holds the view that discussions might in the end be fruitful. If he holds that view, it would be ungracious and politically and strategically inept for me not to say that I shall withdraw my Amendment on the basis that we will talk on the matter and that, if we do not reach agreement, I shall restore it on Report or on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.10 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I moved the original Amendment and I wish to be guided in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has with-drawn his Amendment to my proposed new clause. If the Committee has disposed of his Amendment and has there-fore allowed the noble Lord to withdraw it, my new clause is still before the Com-mittee and I want to say something about it.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I am aware of that. Amendments Nos. 16 to 29 were not moved.
Lord SHEPHERD: Perhaps I can help. The Amendment which is now before the Committee is No. 14 which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I am getting a little puzzled. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn his Amendment to the main Amendment which was originally proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, which means that the Question now before the Committee is that that Amendment be agreed to.
Lord SHEPHERD: And that Amendment is No. 14.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I hope I am now free to comment briefly on the Motion which is now before the Committee—
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: —which is whether Amendment No. 14 shall be adopted. I will not delay the Committee for long, but although the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has with-drawn his Amendment I am most anxious that the Committee should adopt my new clause.
Lord CHAMPION: Is it not a fact that the Committee has before it a series of Amendments to the one proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton? Will we not have to deal with those before eventually returning to the main Amendment; namely, that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton?
Lord GOODMAN: May I be permitted—
Several Noble Lords: Order.
Lord CHAMPION: I suggest that the Committee must first dispose of all out-standing Amendments to Amendment No. 14 before returning to that Amendment.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I have indicated that Amendments Nos. 16 to 29 have not been moved.
Lord GOODMAN: I have a suggestion to make to the Leader of the House. I think it would help us if the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, also withdrew his
252
Amendment, because we are now about to traverse the whole field again to see what possibility of a solution can be found by the exercise of the highest degree of ingenuity and compromise. It would be helpful if we did not have any Amendments in this sphere, so that we could consider the matter entirely afresh. I therefore suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Koughton, withdraws his Amendment pending fresh discussions.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I could not agree to that. I submit that the new clause is the best on which the discussions can take place and is the basic proposal on which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, tabled his Amendment. It seems to me that if the Committee will write the new clause into the Bill discussions can take place on how it can be adapted to meet the general views of the Committee; otherwise, after our long consideration of the matter the Committee will have nothing before it, except talks to take place between now and the later stages of the Bill. This, with respect, is not the way to deal with a matter of this importance on which so much work has been done.
My new clause offers the best prospect of being the foundation for reaching an accommodation, and if there is anything else I should like to know what it is. Nobody else has put forward anything to replace the new clause in Amendment No. 14 as the foundation for future action. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, confined himself to tabling an Amend-ment to my new clause. If he had a remedy that was outwith the new clause it would have been open to him to put it down as a separate Amendment, but he did not do that. He has traded wholly on my new clause, I submit, because he recognises that it holds the floor and offers the best hope of eventual agreement.
Therefore, I submit with respect, that it is not fair of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, to ask me to withdraw my new clause simply because he has withdrawn his Amendment. If he had pressed his Amendment and it had been agreed to, my new clause as amended would have been in the gravest peril from the point of view of acceptance by Parliament, and the noble Lord knows that. As I have said, unless my new clause is accepted the

253
Committee will end up with nothing and will have deserted its responsibility to endeavour to find something to overcome the difficulties of this matter. This being so, I ask your Lordships to support the new clause which is Amendment No. 14.
Clause 3 agreed to.
In the Title :
8.18 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I beg to move Amendment No. 32.
Amendment moved—
Line 4, at end insert (" and to provide for a code of practice on matters relating to the freedom of the press. ")—[Lord Houghton of Sowerby.]
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed : Bill reported with the Amendments.

FISHING VESSELS (ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT) (GRANTS) (AMENDMENT) SCHEME 1975
8.19 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI rose to move, That the Draft Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme 1975, laid before the House on 11th February, be approved. The noble Lord said : My Lords, the purpose of this Order is to extend for the calendar year 1975 the Government's power to pay grant for the construction of new fishing vessels or the improvement of old ones. For many years successive Governments, with the full support of the House, have thought it right to provide an incentive for this kind of investment in an industry which, by its very nature, is likely to suffer sharp fluctuations in cash returns. The level of the grant has fluctuated from time to time depending on both the level of incentive the Government thought appropriate at the time, and on the view they have to take as to considerations of public expenditure. It is important that investment in the industry should continue, given that technical advances are continuously being made and that in the course of time we may have to look increasingly to the multi-
254
purpose vessel as an important element in the constitution of the fleet.
The principal difference which we have made in the Order now before the House is that the rates of grant for vessels below 80 feet have been unified with those for vessels of 80 feet and over at 25 per cent. It has been held in the fishing industry for some time that the differential of 5 per cent. between grants for inshore vessels and others has been a source of structural distortion. The number of vessels constructed at 79 feet or 79·9 feet over the last five years—they were actually 28 in number—certainly bears out this view. A further consideration is that the future for fisheries may be one where we shall wish to preserve the maximum flexibility in vessel construction. We do not know what will be the outcome of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference to be held later this month, but 200 mile fisheries limits may well be agreed. Whether we are in or out of the European Economic Community, such an outcome will mean that we may well come to depend more on the multi-purpose type of vessel and, perhaps, on new kinds of distant water vessel. This being so, we should ensure that operational considerations alone govern the design and construction of vessels. The unification of grant rates will remove an obstacle to this end.
Of course the statutory authorities and the industry would have preferred unification of grants to be at the higher rate of 30 per cent. But here consideration of public expenditure intervenes. In the autumn of 1973 it was seen that approvals issued by the statutory authorities would lead to expenditure out-running provision. In December 1973 it was decided to impose a moratorium on approvals which was not lifted until June 1974. We did not wish to contemplate the possibility of imposing a further moratorium so disturb-ing vessel construction programmes once more. It therefore seemed prudent both in the interests of construction programmes and of the need to contain the levels of public expenditure to unify the rates of grant at the lower, rather than the higher, level. The cost of these grants which the House will appreciate is quite separate from the special aid announced on 27th February, is estimated to be of the order of £6 million in the current financial year. This would represent an

255
investment of some £24 million in new and improved vessels. Clearly, the grant incentive is an important element in keeping investment in the industry going at a healthy rate and the Government have no hesitation therefore in asking the House to approve the Order. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme 1975, laid before the House on 1lth February, be approved. —(Lord Strabolgi.)
8.26 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, from this side we very much agree with the Government's policy of supporting our fishing industry in what will clearly be a very difficult period. I should like to start by saying that Government support in fiscal terms has been increasing over a period of years. One simply cannot take two years together, but from the previous record it is very interesting to note that in 1970–71 Government support in fiscal terms was £2·7 million, rising to £3·5 million in 1971–72, and to £6 million in 1972–73. The question which I should like to address to Her Majesty's Government is this. Has this support been eroded by inflation, or can it be expressed as in-creased support in real terms? The year 1973–74 started with commitments and, as the noble Lord will recall, up to 13th December 1973, when a moratorium was imposed, there was a further £5·8 million of new commitments. Can we know from Her Majesty's Government what has happened to the moratorium?
It is only just over 12 months since my noble friend Lord Ferrers laid a some-what similar Order which was approved in your Lordships' House. Since then the difficulties of the fishing industry have been very marked in one particular field; that is in regard to oil fuel. Here the oil fuel situation has been exceptionally difficult in so far as smaller vessels are concerned, and I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to the fact that the inshore vessels, the small vessels in the industry, are under some considerable difficulty in this regard. With the rising cost of oil it is no longer possible to say that the small inshore vessels will be well provided for,

256
because boats over 100 feet—those of middle water—get a grant of £90; boats of 40 to 50 feet get a grant of £5 per day; and the small ones, to which I referred only a few minutes ago, get nothing. This is of great significance when considering the importance of the inshore fishing industry.
My Lords, the noble Lord has made a reference to the Law of the Sea Conference. It would be idle to speculate at present on the position of the inshore fishing industry. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has alluded to the middle water vessels and has drawn our attention to the fact that the medium-sized vessels will benefit particularly from the present scale of grants. I should like to ask whether the oil subsidy will apply to that range at the present rate of £5 a day, or will be varied. Secondly, in regard to oil, it seems that there is a somewhat curious situation in the same Ministry, although in a different industry—that is, the horticultural industry—in that the glasshouse oil subsidy has only recently stopped. It was a subsidy of great importance to that industry, and it has been curtailed. Yet it is intended to proceed with the subsidy in the fishing industry. I wonder whether the noble Lord is in a position to relate the situation regarding oil for glasshouses to the fishing boat subsidy? It would also be very helpful, in regard to the position of the industry as a whole, if the noble Lord would tell us how the Government see the position on catches, because the two relate very closely. Is there evidence in the hands of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the prosperity of the middle water and inshore fishing industry, which is sufficient to justify the Government's present intention of both grants and subsidies on oil?
8.29 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his lucid explanation of the Scheme, and I wish to say that we formally support the Order which he is proposing to make. Incentives of the kind evisaged are very important to encourage investment of the nature explained and described by the noble Lord. These incentives are particularly important in view of the great technological improvements which are being made, and which to many of us are known to be envisaged, particularly in

257
regard to multi-purpose fishing vessels. I should also like to ask a question in relation to the oil fuel situation as it affects inshore vessels. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the Government have it in mind to make any supplement to grants for inshore vessels in view of the increase in the price of oil.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for the general welcome they have given to this Order. I shall do my best to answer the various questions that they have asked. First, the questions asked by Lord Sandys on the moratorium. These schemes have existed since 1953. Approvals and payments of grant under successive schemes have been delegated by Statute to the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board. The present rates of grants which are 30 per cent. of approved cost for vessels of less than 80 feet in length and 25 per cent. for larger vessels, have obtained since 27th October 1970, when they were reduced from 40 per cent. and 35 per cent. respectively.
The present Order provides for one rate of grant for all vessels; namely, 25 per cent. In the autumn of 1973, during the last period of the Conservative Government, it was noticed that grants and loans were being approved by the statutory bodies at a rate which was causing money to be committed in excess of provision. The then Conservative Government were obliged to impose a moratorium on 13th December 1973. At that time the industry was apparently re-investing some 18 per cent. of its earnings. The moratorium was lifted on 27th June 1974.
The noble Lord also talked about the different aids to the industry and he quoted figures. I do not think he quoted up to 1973. In 1973–74 the figure had gone up to £76 million; and since the schemes began the sums involved have totalled £47 million. The noble Lord also asked about other aids to the industry. As announced by my right honourable friend on 27th February, we are now giving a general grant to fishing vessels. The grant is to the value of £6¼ million and is payable as a gradu-ated daily rate according to vessel size for days at sea related to voyages under-

258
taken during the period 1st January to 30th June 1975, for the purpose of catches of white fish and herring; but shell fish are not included. These will be subject to a further Order which will be submitted to your Lordships later, when we shall be able to go into it in more detail. I can say now that the aid is intended as a temporary prop to assist the industry to maintain roughly the pre-sent level of activity during a period when costs have risen far ahead of market returns. Without such help which will assist certain sectors to adjust more rationally to future situations of marketing and higher fuel costs and, in particular, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys mentioned, of oil, there is a risk of a rapid run-down leading to permanent structural damage.
My Lords, the noble Lord asked about the different vessels which will benefit from this grant. He directed our attention to the fact that this is a decreasing rate and is payable at £5 for 40 feet to 50 feet and there is a cut-off there. He asked why the special aid excludes vessels of less than 40 feet. I thought that this was a very fair point. This is quite separate from the main matter under discussion tonight. We shall discuss this later when the Order comes before the House. I can say now that the Government fully recognise that all sectors of the fleet are experiencing higher costs which, under present conditions are not always recoverable from market returns. These unavoidable operating costs include fuel, gear and repairs; but they undoubtedly bear most heavily upon the larger types of vessel which necessarily travel further for their catches. The cost pressures that face the operators of these vessels are such that, without some aid now, an unacceptably large number of vessels may shortly be taken out of fishing, with associated problems—not only of making up catch deficiencies, but the valuable sea-going and shore-based expertise will be dispersed and lost to the industry. The Government do not consider, despite the acknowledged cost increases borne by that sector, that com-parable structural problems will arise in respect of vessels of less than 40 feet; and believe that the best use of the limited resources that can be made avail-able now will be achieved by applying them in the manner announced.

259
Basically, small boats do not have costs of the same order as the larger vessels.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, tried to compare these to the other subsidies on the horticultural industry. But this aid is not a general subsidy; it is a particular form of aid to help the fishing industry over its present operational difficulties, and I submit that it cannot be compared with the general subsidies to the agricultural industry which have been the policy of the last Government and continue to be the policy of this one. I hope I have answered all the points raised.

COMMUNITY RELATIONS (AMEND -MENT) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1975
8.37 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge) rose to move, That the Draft Community Relations (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 13th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Order is to make changes in the statutory machinery for helping to improve community relations in Northern Ireland. It proposes to amalgamate the Department of Community Relations with the Department of Education; to dissolve the Northern Ireland Community Relations Commission and to transfer certain functions of; the Commission to the Department of Education. The former Northern Ireland Executive announced in April 1974 that in the context of a power-sharing Gov-ernment there was no continuing need for an independent Community Relations Commission, and proposed the abolition of the Commission and the absorption of its functions by the Department of Community Relations. Before going further, I should like to pay tribute to those men and women who served as members and as chairmen of the Community Relations Commission throughout a very difficult period. Their work deserves our respect and our gratitude,

260
and I am sure that noble Lords will join me in this tribute to their efforts.
After the fall of the Executive, the Government considered the position of the Department of Community Relations and decided that it was too slender to continue as a separate entity and would be more efficient if its functions were transferred under the umbrella of a larger Department. The purpose of this Draft Order is to give effect to these proposals. Article 3 abolishes both the Department of Community Relations and the Community Relations Commission and pro-vides that any residual property, rights or liabilities of these bodies shall be inherited by the Department of Education. Article 4 transfers to the Department of Education all the statutory responsibilities of the Department of Community Relations and also the principal responsibilities of the Community Relations Commission.
The Department of Education was considered to be the most appropriate recipient of these responsibilities. Community development work is part educational and part a social service; the work of promoting better understanding between Catholics and Protestants is in the broadest sense educational in nature; but it involves, and indeed to a larger extent depends on, the provision of social facilities such as community centres and facilities for sport and recreation. The latter were the responsibility of the Department of Education until 1st January 1974. It is therefore natural that they should return there. Accordingly, Article 4(1) transfers to the Department of Education the responsibilities of the Department of Community Relations in respect of social need and of sport and recreation. Article 4(2) gives to the Department of Education the function of "formulating and sponsoring policies for the improvement of community relations in Northern Ireland". This general duty was the original statutory function of the Department of Community Relations. It is re-enacted here in order to make it clear that the Department of Education will continue to pursue the same overall ends and objectives as the Department of Community Relations.
We intend that in future there should be a much greater emphasis than before on involving local government in

261
Northern Ireland in the solution of the social problems which have exacerbated community relations problems. District councils are already deeply involved in the provision of sporting and recreational facilities for their localities. The Government intend to give encouragement to district councils to extend the scope of this work, in improving social life in their districts and in supporting community activities in the broadest sense. In recent years there has been a remarkable growth of active community groups in Northern Ireland, often stimulated and guided by the Community Relations Commission. The general objective of these associations is to act as pressure groups on behalf of the needs of their area, and to work with the statutory agencies in meeting these needs. I believe that the Government's proposals will be of great help in cementing good social relationships in Northern Ireland, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Community Relations (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 13th February, be aproved— (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
8.43 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for explaining the reasons for this Order, because under its dedicated Permanent Secretary and staff the Department of Community Relations in Northern Ireland has undoubtedly brought a great deal of help to many parts of the Province. It has done so promptly and effectively. May I also join with the Government in paying a tribute to the Community Relations Commission.
I should like to give a particular welcome to three aspects of the Order. First, that the Department of Education is henceforward to exercise the functions under the Social Need (Grants) Act 1970; secondly, that under paragraph 4(2) the Department of Education will be responsible for policy; and, thirdly, that recreation and youth services are to be returned to Education. My reason for welcoming the first two provisions is that, as the noble Lord said, it is the intention that the work of improving community relations should continue unabated, and this

262
is the prime point on which to satisfy oneself in looking at this Order.
May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, whether any staff are being transferred to the Department of Education from either the Department of Community Relations or the Commission, for it is surely important that staff who have been working closely in the field of community relations should be transferred to afford an element of continuity in the new Department. May I also ask what other arrangements are being made in respect of staff whose positions cease under the Order, and who are not being transferred; in other words, those who will lose their jobs.
Regarding the third fact which I particularly welcome, that the recreation and youth services are to be transferred to the Education Department, these functions have historically come under Education and I know that the Department has their interests very much at heart. With those few questions and observations, I warmly support this Order.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome of this Order. He really asked me only one question, which is very easily answered. The staff of the Department of Community Relations has moved over into the Department of Education, I think without exception. The position of the Community Relations Commission is rather different. The staff were given notice quite a long time ago and all except three have now accepted the situation happily, or at least without complaint. We have three "unsatisfied customers" and we are hoping to achieve a settlement in those cases. Many of the 16 outside workers and the 10 inside workers are still doing the same kind of work but in different areas, having been taken on by area boards and other people. We have only three who are not yet fully accepted. I think I have answered the only question which the noble Lord asked. I am glad that he approves of our choice of the Department of Education—a Department in which I know he has a special interest—to undertake these important duties.

SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT PREMIUM (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1975
8.45 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE rose to move, That the Draft Selective Employment Premium (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 13th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the main purpose of the Draft Order is to provide a basis for continuing to pay selective employment premium in Northern Ireland after 6th April 1975. Selective employment premium is paid to employers in Northern Ireland's manufacturing industry on the same basis and at the same rates as regional employment premium in development areas in Great Britain. This Order is required on tech-nical grounds. It makes no change in the amounts of premium payable weekly (which are £3 for men and £1·50 for women and boys); nor does it otherwise alter the main features of the scheme which operates in parity with the arrangements in Great Britain.
The Order is required because one of the existing conditions of entitlement to premium is payment of an employer's flat rate National Insurance contribution. Under the Social Security Act 1973 the flat rate contribution will disappear on 6th April 1975, with the introduction of a wholly earnings-related system of contributions. It is therefore necessary to stipulate a new condition for eligible employers. The Draft Order proposes to do this on a simple basis, which is very close to the existing condition and which is in line with recent Westminster legislation which has similarly provided for the continued payment of Regional Employment Premium in Great Britain. Article 2, together with Schedule I, has the effect of entitling an employer whose establishment satisfies the required con-ditions, to receive selective employment premium in respect of any week in which he employs an employee for eight hours or more and pays him for his employment.
If approved, the Draft Order will allow this important regional incentive to continue to be paid to manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland, where, as in our . other hard pressed regions, it helps to

264
preserve jobs and industrial capacity. I commend it to the House, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Selective Employment Premium (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 13th February, be approved.—(Lord Donald-son of Kingsbridge.)

APPROPRIATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1975
8.48 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE rose to move, That the Draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid before the House on 25th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 be approved. It is customary in relation to Northern Ireland expenditure to present three such Orders, the first and main one being in June or July; the second, dealing with the Autumn Supplementary Estimates, generally in December; and the third, the Spring Supplementary Estimates, at about this time of the year. This is the third Order of the series, and it does two things. First, it appropriates the Spring Supplementary Estimates and the Further Spring Supplementary Estimates which cover the additional provision required for the expenditure of Northern Ireland Departments in the current financial year. This is covered by Article 3(1). Secondly, it appropriates the sums required on account of expenditure in 1975–76 so as to ensure that money is available for public services in the opening months of that year. That is covered by Article 3(2).
The Spring Supplementary Estimates and the Further Spring Supplementary Estimates amount to about £75 million and bring total estimates provision for 1974/75 to some £725 million. More than half of the additional provision is ac-counted for by pay and price increases. The more significant items making up the balance are a £21 million grant to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to enable it to wipe out cumulative deficits in its accounts; a £2·6 million grant to the same body by way of compensation

265
for the national policy of freezing rents, and a grant of £3·1 million to the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation. Where the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation has assisted an undertaking by making a loan or giving a guarantee for borrowing and the undertaking is unable to repay, the Corporation has to write off the loan or meet the guarantee as the case may be. In either event the necessary funds are provided by the Department of Commerce by way of grant.
The total of the sums required on ac-count for 1975–76 is £316 million and is calculated broadly on the basis of 45 per cent. of the total Estimates provision for 1974–75. It is not related to the total of the Main Estimates for the incoming financial year which have not yet been finalised.
My Lords, this Order will be considered in another place this week. It is a Bill concerned with finance and is usually not something that your Lordships' House feels it should go into in great detail. The privilege of doing this is reserved to another place, but I shall of course be happy to answer any questions any Member likes to ask. These few words are intended only to provide a brief summary of the contents of the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, laid be-fore the House on 25th February, be ap-proved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge.)
8.52 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, having heard the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, and as he must no doubt be anxious for his dinner, I will be fairly short; but we are considering the Appropriations Bill for Northern Ireland, and under the Temporary Provisions Act by which Northern Ireland is governed this House has the right to examine the performance of Government, both future and past, in this light. While in general the consideration of financial matters may not be the duty of this House, under the Temporary Provisions Act and the conditions prevailing in Northern Ireland I should like to welcome the noble Lord's agreement to answering questions in this way. It is a late hour,

266
but in the circumstances which exist in Northern Ireland Parliament has decided that we shall have to deal with these problems in this Chamber. It may be quite useful if we realise the advantages of devolved government, in that if devolved government were working in Northern Ireland we should not now have to be watching the clock to see when we were going to leave. It should be an incentive to everybody to get devolved government as soon as possible. When one looks at the number of people who are involved in this debate today on what, to people in Northern Ireland, is a most important matter, it seems that we are not able to examine this matter in the detail we should.
I think it would be right to say that we in the North of Ireland feel that we are to a large extent being kept in the dark as to what is happening on the governmental field with regard to expenditure. I would appeal to the Government to deal with the situation by being more open in their total explanation about what is going on. I realise of course that the Government have problems due to the fall of the Executive and the way they have to govern. I certainly understand that, but I feel that a greater effort should be made to explain exactly what is happening in terms of not only pounds, shillings and pence but the actual activities that are being curtailed and expanded.
One of the duties which we have under this temporary Government—I am not meaning that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, is temporary ; I am meaning the method by which we are governed—is to reemphasise that Government under these conditions should not be doctrinaire; that is, we should go ahead and govern on the basis of good government and not go either to the Right or to the Left. Successive Unionist Governments in the North of Ireland have always in the past, whether it be that a Socialist Government or a Conservative Government were in power here, adopted and adapted all legislation in order to make it suit Northern Ire-land's needs. Indeed, there are many cases when we think that our adaptation has produced much better government than happened here. For instance, we did not accept the Industrial Relations Act and, as a result, in my view, our

267
labour relations have been quite out-standing. There are other factors which make it right that that should not be done; but that is one policy we did not accept in toto, and there are many others.
The reason I am saying that is that at the present moment many of us are very fearful that under the present Government we may be being used as a Socialist experiment. I should like Lord Donaldson to make is absolutely clear that there will not be doctrinaire operations within the industrial field, because this would be alien to the total electorate of Northern Ireland without its being modified by their own Government. The social and economic activities of the Government of Northern Ireland may not seem very important in the context of Westminister, but they are absolutely vital in terms of Northern Ireland in its present state; that is, we must have progressive, good government when we are suffering from the riot conditions which we are enduring at the moment—it is absolutely vital.
In what one might term as the first period of direct rule under my right honourable friend Willie Whitelaw, the Administration were held together by straight, good government and very energetic government. I realise that conditions are not exactly the same, and the present Government have difficulties which did not confront their predecessors. But I must make it clear that many of us feel at the present moment government is in fact grinding to a halt and there is a tremendous lack of decisions which inevitably leads to bad government—
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, we are supposed to be discussing Supplementary Estimates. It would be to the benefit of the House if we could do so.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon. I am just coming to the Supplementary Estimates. The question that arises is how the Estimates are arrived at; whether they are coming out of what was called the block grant. It is a new method of financing expenditure in Northern Ireland. From everything I hear, all the expenditure, and cuts in expenditure, are related,

268
or appear to be related, to the financing of Harland and Wolff. I should like to know how much education is being cut because of the support that is necessary to Harland & Wolff. How much is the road programme being cut? I cannot find that out from the Estimates. I wonder, if it came to a point, whether in this country for instance the support for Meriden would result in some effect on education. It is an extremely difficult matter to which to find a comprehensive answer. If we could have an answer to that I believe it would satisfy a great number of people in the North of Ireland.
Next I should like to criticise regarding the commerce grant, where I can find no trace of expenditure for Ministers to go abroad. During the whole period of Northern Ireland government from Westminster, including the period of the Conservative Administration, the Ministers responsible for commerce—my honourable friend David Howell and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham—went abroad to tout for industry or to act as salesmen for industry in this country. I can find no sign of that in the Estimates. We have had success in Northern Ireland in attracting new industry; after all, we have 100,000 new jobs. During the short period of life of the Northern Ireland Executive, the then Member for Commerce went abroad and produced new industry.
The next question which I should like to ask concerns the expenditure on Alder-grove airport. In two months' time we shall have the TriStar aeroplane. I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, came over to this country today in a very nice aero-plane. I came over in a Trident; I thought that it was his aeroplane which was ahead of mine! At the present moment, there is no preparation at Aldergrove whatsoever for taking the TriStar. I can find no more than a very small amount of expenditure which is due to be spent upon Aldergrove airport, which will have to deal with 300 people at a time. Early this morning I waited outside the car park for a quarter of an hour before I could even get into it. What will happen when we have 300 people trying to get in?
We have spent a lot of money upon Aldergrove airport. We have a runway

269
which will take the TriStar, but the taxi-ways are not fit to carry it, and we have spent half of the money on the aerodrome. Thirty per cent. of extra time will be spent in that aeroplane, due to the fact that the TriStar will have to turn around and taxi back along the runway in order to disgorge its passengers—and "dis-gorge" is the right word. Therefore, I appeal to the Government to deal with Aldergrove airport in this appropriation and in next year's appropriation so as to make it fit to take the TriStar aeroplane. I feel that British Airways have bought their aeroplanes too soon. When they cannot find anything else to do with them, they appear to put them on the Belfast route.
The next subject that I should like to raise is tourism, since we are in a period of temporary ceasefire. I should like to know what provisions have been made for reactivating the "selling" of tourism in Northern Ireland, if this ceasefire holds. Where will this money come from? Will the Government make provision for reactivating the "selling" of tourism in Northern Ireland? It is my honour to have had something to do with tourism. The sum of £300,000 is needed in order to reactivate the tourist board which has run down its staff and is no longer selling Ulster in a hard way.
May I go into a few details? Bangor Pier and the whole of Bangor Harbour have been neglected for years—admit-tedly, by a Unionist Government. I should like to feel that money will be provided in the appropriation to make safe this very unsafe pier. And, my Lords, when can we have the by-pass around Dungannon? I am very sad that the Gov-ernment should have decided to abandon that project. But what worries me is that, having abandoned it, they have decided to go ahead with the high bridge in Lon-donderry. The area around County Fer-managh does not riot, but the areas which do so get extra finance.
The noble Lord has mentioned the pro-vision of extra finance for the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation. It is being provided mainly to deal with a textile firm in Londonderry, because it is almost impossible to make it viable. Therefore, my Lords, I should like to be told how this matter is being dealt with on a block grant basis, because—to return to Harland and Wolff—any previous industrial project was

270
dealt with on its merits. It had no effect in reducing a social service. If it produced new industry, it produced only new industry. If it produced new employment, it produced only new employment. Never before this time did the grant have any effect upon roads, education, or any other subject.
9.6 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the noble Viscount has made a Second Reading speech on the state of the nation which is worthy of | a debate in a place quite different from this. He has managed not to offend the susceptibilities of the other place, because he has not talked about financial affairs. He has talked about Bangor Pier, tourism, Ministers going abroad and various matters of that kind. I think he has stretched very far the privilege of this House. How-ever, he is a very old friend and a very keen supporter of that part of the United Kingdom which I am concerned in trying to run. Therefore, I shall do my best to answer some of his questions. However, I have to confess that I do not think they arise under the Motion in any way whatsoever.
First, may I deal with two of the generalities. The idea that the public in Northern Ireland is kept in the dark over finance is rather fantastic when, within the last three months, the most elaborate and complete pamphlet describing the entire financial position has been published. It is probably more detailed than anything which has been published in any other part of the United Kingdom at any time in our history. Therefore I reject utterly the suggestion that they are kept in the dark regarding finance. I can assure the noble Viscount that if it is a vast Socialist experiment that is taking place, it has been concealed from me—and I am one of the administrators. We get a number of firms which are in very serious trouble asking to be taken over. That is very different from a Socialist experiment. In many cases my right honourable friend Stan Orme has to say that he cannot do it. Where he can, he does so. It is extremely important to the prosperity of Northern Ireland that attention should be paid to pre-serving jobs where this is economically viable. This we are doing as hard as we can.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I am certainly not criticising the support to Harland and Wolff, or any-thing like that. I am really criticising the cuts to the other projects and finding out where they come from and on what basis they are made.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: Let me come to the cuts. In the first place we do not admit cuts. There is a certain redistribution. But take, for example, the education programme: in 1974–75 the expenditure was expected to be £60 million, £48 million for current expenses and £12 million for capital costs. In the following year it is expected to be £70½ million of which £56 million will be current expenses and £14½ million for new capital development. An increase of £2½ million, even in the estimation of the noble Viscount, cannot be regarded as a cut. I hear him say "inflation". Of course, there is an inflationary element, but, if you work out the proportion of 2½ to 12, it should cover any immediate inflation; it is about 25 per cent. This could hardly be regarded as a cut, nor should it be.
Regarding the Dungannon By-Pass and the Foyle Bridge, the noble Viscount spoke as if we were rejecting one in favour of the other. This is not the case; both are going ahead. The Foyle Bridge is going ahead as originally planned. The Dungannon By-Pass has been reduced from a motorway to an all-purpose road. This has been done because, under the new Westminster Department of the Environment rules for road construction, the traffic fore-casts on the Dungannon By-Pass do not justify the cost of motorway construction. This is a reduction in standard which makes sense in relation to the forecast of use, and I should have thought that everybody would welcome this as a reasonable and satisfactory economy. It is not being abandoned.
Regarding the Bangor pier, this is falling down and has been doing so for many years. It became rather dangerous for prowling fishermen so the local council very properly put a barbed wire fence on top to stop people going on it, and that is the position which will remain. If small boys or large men like to climb over the barbed wire—which is quite

272
difficult to do—and fall off, this will be at their own risk. So much for the Bangor pier.
As regards tourism, the tourist board is an excellent organisation. In my opinion it is in good nick at the moment. A great deal of very important forestry work is being done by the Tourist Board together with the Department of Agriculture for which I am responsible. Things are being made ready. The minute the ceasefire turns into something which is reliable and more permanent it is rearing to go and I am not the least worried that we will be happy to provide the money to do so and that we will have the personnel and the technique. We are not a bit worried. The tourist industry is all right, but it would be a great mistake to start developing it at this stage.
I shall go through the noble Viscount's speech and if there is anything I have missed I shall write to him. Lastly, I should like to deal with this question of Ministers going abroad. I should like to assure him that it is not necessary to provide an entry in the Supplementary Estimates, the main Estimates or any other Estimates for a Minister to go abroad. We are quite able to do so. I have only to be sent by the Secretary of State and the money will be found, probably for a tourist seat, which is very un-comfortable—the kind of thing the noble Viscount had to travel in today.
My Lords, I appreciate the steady application which the noble Viscount gives to the problems of Northern Ire-land and his relentless bringing one back to the general problem however particular the Order one is supposed to be considering. I shall always be happy to answer him. I hope I have answered the greater part of his questions and I shall write if there is anything outstanding.
9.13 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, just before the Question is put, may I thank the noble Lord for that long answer. I have not spoken in the debate and I do not intend to, but I have listened carefully to what has been said. I rise simply to say, with respect, that perhaps we should be a little careful before we start saying that Orders to this House from Northern Ireland cannot, even if they are financial

273
ones, be looked at closely. I am no authority on the procedure of this House, but I think I am right in saying that when the Finance Bill comes to us from another place we have a general debate. But, of course, the noble Lord is quite right in saying that it would be totally improper for this House to take a decision.
So when we have an Appropriation Order I know that my noble friend and I would entirely accept that it would be improper for us to try to take a contrary decision; but it is valuable that my noble friend, himself living in Northern Ireland —as the noble Lord has said in his closing words—should ask some of these detailed questions. Of course there is the theme to which I am afraid I keep reverting in your Lordships' House: namely, that the only way in which we in this House can get information is by raising a fairly detailed debate on these Orders.
I hope the noble Lord will not mind if I detain the House for one last moment, to say that I was glad that my noble friend raised these points and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for the detailed answers that he has given. Perhaps on the subject of Aldergrove the noble Lord will write to my noble friend. It will be a letter which, if I am allowed to see it, I also shall be interested to read.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, just before we finish, I can give a quick answer in regard to Aldergrove. The position is that the provision of the TriStar service is a matter for British Airways and it is for them to make certain that the facilities are available to deal with it. Complaints can come to us after things have gone wrong, but not before. We are in a position to sanction a further develop-ment at Aldergrove and this is under consideraton, but no decision has been made at this stage. The decision is based not on the TriStar but on the whole future of Aldergrove.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I really think that the noble Lord is wrong on the subject of Aldergrove. There are no buildings which can deal with 300 people. Aldergrove is already

274
taking over 40 per cent. more than its planned population. To deal with the TriStar there has to be a major construction scheme—or rather a destruction scheme because a whole lot of walls have to be knocked down. In two months' time we shall be going into this enormous aeroplane and there is no room to do it. There are not the car parks available and it is not a matter for British Airways.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the proper course is for the noble Viscount to talk to British Airways, who are responsible.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, the airports are run by the Gov-ernment, by the Northern Ireland Air-ports Authority. The provision of build-ings and facilities is a matter for the Government, not for the airways.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I will look at this point. I know that we are examining the whole question of what expenditure is available for the development of Alder-grove, and it is a very difficult problem. The noble Viscount is speaking of some-thing on a much smaller scale devoted to the reception of one kind of large aeroplane, which is purely a matter for British Airways. In any case, I will write to the noble Viscount. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that it is desirable for us to discuss these matters. I congratulated the noble Viscount on not getting too involved in finance and I enjoyed replying to him as much as he enjoyed making his speech.

QUEEN'S ROAD BRIGHTON BURIAL GROUND BILL [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVI-SIONAL ORDER (FISHGUARD AND GOODWICK HARBOUR) BILL
Reported without Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

  TERRORIST VIOLENCE: CASUALTIES
  TERRORIST VIOLENCE: CASUALTIES
  HOUSING: LOCAL AUTHORITY INSPECTION
  HOUSING: LOCAL AUTHORITY INSPECTION
  ROADS: MEASUREMENTS
  ROADS: MEASUREMENTS
  INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS
  INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS