Sitting of 1 December 1977

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

  SELECTION
  Ordered,
  That the Standing Order of 6th August 1976 relating to the nomination of members of the Committee of Selection be amended by leaving out Mr. Donald Stewart and inserting Mr. A. J. Beith.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

  CROWN AGENTS
  Return ordered,
  of the Report by the Committee of Inquiry appointed by the Minister of Overseas Development into the circumstances which led to the Crown Agents requesting financial assistance from the Government in 1974.—[Mrs. Hart.]
  Return ordered,
  of the Statement by Her Majesty's Government on the Report by the Fay Committee of Inquiry on the Crown Agents.—[Mrs. Hart.]
  Return ordered,
  of the Report by the Advisory Committee on the Crown Agents (the Stevenson Committee), 24th March 1974, being Annex V to the Statement by Her Majesty's Government on the Report by the Fay Committee of Inquiry on the Crown Agents.—[Mrs. Hart.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Green Pound
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest figures available for the percentage effect on the overall price of food and the retail price index of adjusting the value of the green pound to bring it into line with the price of the £ sterling; what steps he is taking to protect the consumer against this sort of movement; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): It would require a devaluation of about 23 per cent. to bring the green pound fully into line with the current market rate used for calculating MCAs. The exact effect of a change of this order cannot be predicted but I estimate that it might eventually raise retail food prices by between 5 per cent. and 6½ per cent. on average and the retail price index by between 1¼ per cent. and 1½ per cent. I have made it clear that the timing and extent of any change must be judged against the national interest as a whole including the impact on the cost of living.
    Mr. Speaker: I omitted to tell the House that fewer and shorter supplementary questions and briefer ministerial replies—I am not referring to the one that we have just heard—help us to reach more Questions.
    Mr. Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of pointing out to the housewives of Britain that they will have to face price increases at the beginning of the year anyway because of the transitional arrangements with the EEC? Will he make it clear to our partners in Europe and to the farming interests in this country that under no circumstances will he consider any devaluation of the green pound?
    Mr. Silkin: I made the position clear to the housewives on 17th February, in answers to questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and the hon. Member for

    693
    Banbury (Mr. Marten), and on various tedious occasions afterwards. Of course the transitional steps will mean a gradual increase in prices, not necessarily on 1st January. Thanks to the butter subsidy, which the Opposition chided me for achieving, increases will be spread over a longer period.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the disparity between the green pound and the real rate is one of the greatest single factors promoting the export of cattle from this country for slaughter abroad? Does he not agree that the many people who condemn the export of cattle should welcome a readjustment in the green pound?
    Mr. Silkin: The connection between those two points is rather remote. I suspect that those who object to the export of live animals do so for compassionate reasons. If one were to devalue the green pound it would assist certain elements in agriculture, but I have to achieve a balance in the national interest.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the time has come to devalue the green pound by 10 per cent. if confidence is to be restored in the beef and pig sector of the agriculture industry?
    Mr. Silkin: If I did agree with the hon. Member, I certainly would not say so at this time. I cannot imagine anything that would have a greater effect on speculation. I am willing to listen to hon. Members' advice. I get a great deal of advice. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) suggests that I devalue by 7½ per cent., the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) says 10 per cent. and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) says zero.
    Mr. Watkinson: When my right hon. Friend goes to Europe for discussions will he say why the green pound and the pigmeat MCAs are different? When will the Commission come forward with proposals on the pigmeat MCAs?
    Mr. Silkin: Yes, because the question of pigmeat MCAs concerns not so much the value of the green pound—or the green franc or the green lire, because they are involved in this as well—but on the method used to calculate the MCAs. We have been pressing the Commission on this for some months now. I am glad to
    694
    say that at the last council we were supported by the French and Italians, and I hope that between the three of us we can move the Commission more speedily.
    Mr. Peyton: May I say how glad I am that the Minister is on his way to recovery, though I doubt whether this is the right place in which to complete recovery? I hope that he will, however.
    Will he confirm that according to his own calculations devaluation of the green pound by 7½per cent. would result in an increase in the cost of living index of about a half per cent? In assessing the national interest will he give proper place to the fate of the livestock producer whose interests ultimately will have a sharp impact upon the consumer, which is the group that the Minister affects to look after?
    Mr. Silkin: I thank the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for his kind remarks. I feel a lot better as I see these old familiar faces all around me.
    As for the substantive part of the question, I have said that this is a question of balance between the interest of the consumer and the interest of the producer. That is the difficulty. I have tried to do a quick mental calculation, and I do not think that I am wrong to within half a per cent., that on food prices it is a figure of about 2½ per cent. Of course the effect on the RPI can be calculated by multiplying that by roughly a quarter.
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the value of the green pound.
    Mr. John Silkin: The difference between the representative rate for sterling and the market rate used for the purpose of calulating monetary compensatory amounts is now £1=1·30696 units of account, giving an applied MCA percentage of 28·9. I continue to keep the rate for the green pound under review.
    Mr. Brotherton: Is the Minister aware that the reply will be received with great disappointment by the pig and beef sectors, and will he tell the House what he is going to do to help the livestock producers over the next three months?
    Mr. Silkin: I was trying to answer the question as factually as I could. A number of factors are moving somewhat

    695
    in the livestock producer's favour. There has been, as there always is at this time of year, an increase in the home market for beef. It happens that at this time there is an increase in exports of Irish beef to this country—an increase which the Irish themselves did not believe would happen. Their calculations were for a drop in production, not an increase, let alone an increase in exports. The fact is that food costs will probably drop a little further, and the target price during the winter will increase.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Is it not true that the grain crop in this country in the current year has increased to 17 million tons for the first time—an all-time record? Against this background, is it not nonsense for Conservative Members continually to claim that the farming community is hard pressed?
    Mr. Silkin: Certain parts of the farming industry are in difficulties, and it is no use denying it. Other parts are doing very well. I have to tread very carefully on the question of a record harvest. I was chided by Sir Henry Plumb and by various members of the Conservative Front Bench for daring to say that there might be one.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does the Minister recognise that while he maintains this very large differential, distortions are being set up in the market which will not be in the interests of the housewife in the long run?
    Mr. Silkin: That is one of the factors that have to be watched. I have always said that we have to keep an absolute balance on the matter of the green pound. It is no good taking a specific sector while, at the same time, ignoring the fact that many of the imports that the housewife needs come in a good deal cheaper than they would otherwise. If I am to be both Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Food, as I must be, I must keep the balance.
    Mr. McNamara: Has my right hon. Friend considered publishing a table containing the possible price variations and inflation variations associated with our revaluing the green pound, so that, for example, 1 per cent. upwards would mean so much on inflation, so much on consumer prices, so much on wage demands, and so much unemployment?
    696
    It would clear our minds if we could have that information.
    Mr. Silkin: If my hon. Friend would care to table a Question, I shall see what I can do.
    Mr. Peyton: Will the right hon. Gentleman identify the large sections of the livestock industry which he thinks are doing particularly well at the moment? My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) mentioned beef and bacon, but he did not mention milk or dairy products. Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to say what will happen to dairy products after the end of the year?
    Mr. Silkin: I could, but I will not, because I am not yet in a position to do so. As the right hon. Gentleman must be aware—none more so—this has been an extremely good year for milk yield, and it was that which I had particularly in mind when I tried to isolate those parts of the livestock industry which I thought were doing not so well. As to pigs, there is difficulty with processing, but for the pig producer the position is undoubtedly improving.

    Non-Milk Fats Products
    Mr. Richard Pageasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what grounds he withdrew his opposition to the proposed new Community regulations enabling the manufacture and marketing of products containing non-milk fats to be restricted.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): My right hon. Friend has always objected to any proposal to restrict the manufacture and marketing of products containing non-milk fats. There is now no such implementing proposal on the table.
    Mr. Page: I thank the Minister for his reply. It seemed likely that the Council of Ministers would approve this regulation, and I am pleased to hear the Minister's denial of it.
    Mr. Bishop: I am glad that the hon. Member is satisfied with our assurance. We believe that the best approach is to reduce surpluses and not to restrict the freedom of choice of food manufacturers and consumers generally.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Giles Shawasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will use his influence in the Council of Ministers in Brussels to modify the common agricultural policy on the lines set out in the proposed common food policy.
    Mr. John Silkin: The Food and Drink Industries Council's proposal for a common food policy is a useful contribution to discussions on the common agricultural policy. Its main aim of bringing about a better balance between producer and consumer is in line with the objectives that I have consistently pursued.
    Mr. Shaw: Does the Minister agree that to produce surpluses to buy into intervention is no longer adequate in the present marketing context? Does he further agree that some other method, be it by way of quotas or targets, is in the interests of the consumer, the food processer and, ultimately, the primary producer?
    Mr. Silkin: I said that I thought that the Council's report was interesting. Where I differ from it is precisely in respect of these production quotas. I think that they are a bit too rigid. I have always thought that the real way to tackle surpluses in the Community was through the end price. It is by producing food at a price that people can afford to pay that one avoids structural surpluses
    Mr. Corbett: In the context of my right hon. Friend's continuing efforts to get better sense in to the CAP ill he try to persuade the Council of Ministers to give more urgent attention to the need to recalculate the pig meat MCAs, in view of their drastic and critical effect on the processing end of the industry and the very real threat to jobs which is bound up with that?
    Mr. Silkin: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) has made this point, because it is vital. It seems that if one is to come into disagreement, as one must, there should at least be no disagreement on the method of calculating the MCAs, and the fact is that the method now adopted is outrageously wrong.
    Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware of the proposals for CAP reform as set out
    698
    by Professor Marsh in the Centre for Agricultural Strategy report? When does he expect to be able to comment on that?
    Mr. Silkin: I think that I might try now. Basically they are very interesting proposals. Professor Marsh skates round one difficulty when he talks about a common trade policy. It is all very well to say that, but how are we to get the Nine to agree? How are we to get Germany, which lives on high prices, and the United Kingdom, which is on a much lower basis, to agree on a common trade policy?

    Common External Tariff
    Mr. Jim Spicerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to ensure that the Community's common external tariff is lowered to allow easier entry of foodstuffs, such as manufacturing beef and honey, of which inadequate supplies are produced within the Community.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): The reduction of tariffs on foodstuffs is one of the objects of the current GATT multilateral trade negotiations. My right hon. Friend the Minister hopes that it will be possible to achieve significant reductions on the Community's tariffs in return for reductions in the tariffs of other countries. Importation of manufacturing beef into the Community is covered by the balance sheet arrangements which permit specified quantities to be imported at a reduced rate of levy.
    Mr. Spicer: I thank the Minister for his reply, but may I emphasise one point? To move away from beef and honey, is he aware that there are other areas where we are about to face fairly hefty increases in import duty—for example, on mandarin oranges? Can he give the House any idea what representations have been made to avoid that, particularly since 95 per cent. of these imports come from Spain, which is seeking entry into the Community? It seems ludicrous.
    Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise that one consequence of Spain's coming into the Community would be the eventual elimination of these tariffs and levies. I agree

    699
    that there are far too many of them on products coming into this country as a result of Community arrangements. The Government are continuing to strive to have them reduced.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Does my hon. Friend not agree that it would have been much better to try to modify the impositions by the Common Market upon us before we went in? Does he not think it is rather cynical for those who voted for use to go in now to complain about the consequences?
    Mr. Strang: I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to reopen the issue of our membership of the Community. However, my hon. Friend and I are agreed on a broad range of changes which we must endeavour to achieve now that we are in the Community.
    Mr. Shersby: Does the Minister agree that the sudden ending of the standstill agreement will result in the duty on mandarin oranges rising from 7½ per cent. to 22 per cent? Will he say what action he is taking with our Community partners to deal with this situation to ensure that the housewife can still get mandarin oranges at a reasonable price?
    Mr. Strang: I can assure the hon. Member that all of our Community partners are aware of our intense opposition to that type of levy and to many other levies and tariffs, which, on occasions, apply to commodities coming into this country of which there is very limited production in the EEC, where they are out of season anyway.

    Badgers
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many badgers he expects to be killed under the powers given by the Diseases of Animals (Badgers) (Control Areas) Order 1977; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the minimum number of badgers are killed, and that the maximum safety precautions are taken when hydrocyanic acid gas is used.
    Mr. Strang: I am afraid that it is not possible to make such an estimate, but gassing is restricted to sets used by tuberculin-infected badgers and their contacts. It is carried out by specially-trained teams of Ministry staff operating under a code
    700
    of practice containing detailed safety instructions.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Is he certain that no other methods of containing the spread of these diseases are possible, apart from the extermination of the badgers?
    Mr. Strang: I recognise that my hon. Friend has raised an issue that is of considerable concern. I can assure him that we should not have embarked on this course if we were not convinced that it was the only way to reduce the level of tuberculosis infection in the local cattle population and also in the local badger population.
    Mr. Watkinson: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that the county that I represent suffers especially from this problem? Will he please publish all the evidence that he has to suggest that it is the badgers which are carrying and transmitting this disease? There is a great deal of concern in Gloucestershire about the whole problem.
    Mr. Strang: Yes, I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Last November we published and placed in the House of Commons Library a report on all the evidence and work that had been done to date. Another report is in preparation and will be published very shortly. I assure my hon. Friend that every step that we have taken in this area has had the support of the consultative panel, which includes representatives of the Nature Conservancy and also leading animal welfare experts.

    Fishing Quotas
    Mr. Cleggasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in negotiations between Norway and the European Economic Community regarding fishing quotas.
    Mr. Bishop: There have so far been two rounds of consultations about reciprocal fishing possibilities in 1978. Considerable progress has been made on the allocation of the shared stocks in the North Sea, but no quotas have yet been decided upon for stocks in the Norwegian Arctic region. These are being discussed in conjunction with quotas for Norway from stocks occurring exclusively in

    701
    member States' waters. Further consultations are to be held shortly.
    Mr. Clegg: Is the Minister aware of the necessity for urgency in this matter? In Fleetwood we have two trawlers tied up, with the men unemployed, and there are many more in Humberside. Does he agree that it is essential to get agreement on the quotas, so that we know for the future what the supplies will be?
    Mr. Bishop: I recognise the urgency of this matter. From the consultations that we have had so far, it seems likely that agreement can be reached on the division of the shared stocks for 1978, but we want to make sure that the United Kingdom gets a share of the available fishing opportunities which is comparable to the contribution that we are making to the Community resources.
    Mr. Jay: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that Norway, by the simple expedient of staying out of the European Economic Community, has obtained a 200-miles exclusive fishing zone, whereas we have not yet obtained one of 50 miles?
    Mr. Bishop: I think that my right hon. Friend will want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture for the contribution that he has made so far in ensuring that the national interests are looked after.

    National Farmers Union
    Mr. Bulmerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the President of the National Farmers Union.
    Mr. Silkin: I have no specific plans, at present, for a meeting with the President of the National Farmers Union but I keep in close touch with the union on matters of concern to agriculture.
    Mr. Bulmer: When the Minister next meets Sir Henry Plumb, will he dissociate himself and his Government from the remarks of another Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett), who said recently that he was in favour of the public ownership of land because the individual farmer is not to be trusted to maintain the long-term fertility of the land?
    Mr. Silkin: The proper person to whom that question should be addressed is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. There is no reason why I should answer a question that relates to something that I do not believe was in fact ever said.
    Mr. Henderson: Will the Minister consider meeting the Newdeer and Turriff branches of the National Farmers Union in Scotland, and discuss with them the dreadful fall in livestock prices in the North-East of Scotland in recent weeks, which they attribute, perhaps rightly, to the imports of subsidised Irish beef? Will the Minister review the position in respect of the rate of variable premium and consider whether the ceiling is now adequate for the market conditions?
    Mr. Silkin: I think there is a difficulty in this sector, and not only in regard to Scotland. Perhaps it applies more to Wales, for largely historic reasons. The marketings plus the exports have come at the same time. I believe that the matter will be looked after fairly well during the winter months, but I shall keep the position very closely under review to ensure that that is so.
    Mr. Jopling: Reverting to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer), may I ask the Minister whether he has read the report of what his colleague in the Government said? Does he recall that the report was written by Mr. Jim Murray, who was at one time a Labour parliamentary candidate, and that the words in the report were in quotation marks? We want to know from the Minister today whether he personally agreed with what his colleague in the Government was supposed to have said—that the public ownership of land was justified because individual farmers could not be trusted to look after the long-term fertility of the land.
    Mr. Silkin: I will deal with the substantive part of that question, but I was anxious that the House should know that it is absurd to ask one Minister to deal with remarks, however phrased, made by somebody else. For example, if I were to deal with all the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman, I would be in a very sorry state indeed. I said that I would deal with the substantive part of

    703
    the question. As to the fertility of farmers, surely what is meant is the fertility of farmland. I do not think that I dare raise a voice about the fertility of farmers.
    Mr. Corbett: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House a little more about the inquiry which he has asked his noble Friend Lord Northfield to undertake into the ownership of farm land? Was one of the reasons for setting up the inquiry the genuine fears in parts of the industry about the increasing investment by financial institutions in agricultural land, because they are interested not in agriculture but in a potential profit from the land?
    Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend has made a point on this subject which is worth considering. The question of who works the land—whether it is the owner, the tenant farmer or the worker who works for either of them—is a very different one from the question of who owns the land. The Northfield Committee was set up to consider whether the whole structure of agricultural land acquisition militated against the proper farming of the land in question.

    Potatoes
    Mr. Newensasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the Potato Marketing Board.
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the position concerning the development of a potato régime within the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Bishop: Proposals for an EEC régime for potatoes have been under discussion in Brussels since early in 1976. Our objective is to achieve a cost-effective solution satisfactory to both producers and consumers. The producer interests have recently published proposals for price stabilisation arrangements which we regard, in principle, as providing a satisfactory basis for the United Kingdom in the longer term, subject to further consideration of their financial implications. These proposals envisage a continuing need for a central marketing authority such as the Potato Marketing Board in Great Britain and we hope they can be accommodated within an acceptable EEC régime.
    Mr. Newens: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the disappearance of the Potato Marketing Board, like other marketing boards, would be an unmitigated disaster for both producers and consumers and that it would be one of the most unpleasant consequences of going into the EEC? Will he assure the House that if these proposals go ahead the Government will make sufficient funds available to ensure that they do not founder for lack of cash?
    Mr. Bishop: I remind my hon. Friend that we said that the guarantee for this this year would continue. The long-term future of the Potato Marketing Board will depend on the part that it will play in an effective EEC régime. It is important to maintain the essential functions of the Board to protect both the producer and the consumer.
    Sir David Renton: Is the Minister aware that farmers generally aim to make their cropping arrangements for the following season by the end of November in respect of the purchase of seed potatoes, fertilisers and the setting of acreages, and that the uncertainty that prevails at the moment is bad from the point of view of next season's potato production? When will that uncertainty be ended?
    Mr. Bishop: There is uncertainty in a number of commodities in agriculture, as we all know. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in all fair-mindedness, will recognise that my right hon. Friends did not play any part in the make-up of the transitional arrangements that are responsible for this situation.
    Mr. Spence: Notwithstanding the negotiations and the last answer, will the Minister take steps to ensure that prices are given to our farmers in good time for next season's planting? Does he realise that otherwise there could be a shortfall due to this considerable uncertainty?
    Mr. Bishop: We certainly understand the difficulties, and we shall do our best to help farmers. These matters will feature in the price review which is now under way.

    Horses and Ponies (Exports)
    Dr. Glynasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many horses and ponies were exported

    705
    live to Denmark in the period 1st January 1977 to 1st July 1977.
    Mr. Strang: A total of 70 horses and ponies were exported to Denmark during this period.
    Dr. Glyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of strong public feeling about the export of animals on the hoof for slaughter? When does he expect his departmental inquiry to report? Does he agree that the minimum levels laid down in 1973 for the export of horses are now completely out of date, because values have changed considerably?
    Mr. Strang: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman on the latter point. I have looked at this matter again. Because horse prices were so high when these values were fixed in 1973, they are still effectively preventing the export of horses for slaughter.
    On the first point, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the review is well under way and that it will be concluded early in the new year.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that the export of live animals for slaughter over the last 10 years has got worse, not better? I suggest that the safeguards are entirely inadequate and that something must be done in response to the public outcry against this bad traffic.
    Mr. Strang: There have been some improvements in the European context. The export of live animals from this country is carried out under much more restrictive arrangements than was previously the case. It was in response to the real concern expressed by my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend set up the present inquiry.

    Australia (Minister's Visit)
    Mr. Bodyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about his visit to Australia.
    Mr. John Silkin: I paid an official visit to Australia in August and September at the invitation of the Australian Government. I had an opportunity to see something of Australian agriculture at first hand and to have talks with
    706
    Australian Ministers. We were able to discuss many problems of mutual interest.
    Mr. Body: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when the Prime Minister of Australia came to this country in the summer he said that no less than one-third of dairy farmers in Australia had been driven out of business because of our entry into the EEC and that no less than 80,000 head of beef cattle had been shot and their carcases destroyed because they could not gain access to these markets? On his visit to Australia, did the Minister glean any evidence that would lead him to the view that we might be able to get some of this food in future if we lowered import duties and levies?
    Mr. Silkin: I certainly saw that in the Commonwealth of Australia there was still available a supply of various kinds of food which this country had been traditionally accustomed to receive. Part of the Australians' complaint, if I read it correctly, was that while they knew that our going into the EEC might reduce their market, the fact was that export restitutions on EEC foodstuffs going out of the Community tended to destroy what other markets they might have. I am sure that our policy of trying to get greater liberalisation for imports of food from temperate climates — particularly from our old Commonwealth partners—in the multinational trade negotiations ought to play its part.
    Mr. Jopling: Did the Minister have talks about the problems of sheepmeat imports from Australia? Is he in a position to tell the House what might happen next year with regard to the possibility of new arrangements for the trade in sheepmeat between third countries and Community countries? Will he make a statement to the House now?
    Mr. Silkin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is as yet no proposal from the Commission that we are in a position to discuss with a view to obtaining a sheepmeat régime for the future. Such a proposal will no doubt be put before us fairly soon. There is one basic point to be extracted from the hon. Gentleman's question on which I hope the whole House will agree—namely, the absolute necessity of safeguarding the entry of New Zealand sheepmeat.

    Pigmeat
    Mr. David Priceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received on behalf of the British pigmeat industry; and what reply he has given to such representations.
    Mr. John Silkin: There have been continuing discussions with the National Farmers Union in the context of the annual review. I have met representatives of the Bacon and Meat Manufacturers Association and have urged them to support me in my representations to the Commission on the unfair way monetary compensatory amounts are calculated in this sector.
    Mr. Price: Is the Minister aware that bacon curers are currently losing about £4 per bacon pig cured and that that is not in anyone's interest, least of all the long-term interest of the British housewife?
    Mr. Silkin: I do not know the exact figure, but the economic position of bacon curers is bad. I should not have thought that it was in the interests of the economics of the country as a whole, either, and that is all the more reason why we should press on with trying to obtain a change in the calculation of the MCAs. As I said in answer to an earlier question, we now have the French and the Italians with us on that matter.
    Mr. Torney: As the contraction of the meat manufacturing and bacon curing industries will cause widespread unemployment in those industries, will my right hon. Friend agree to co-ordinate the opposition in the EEC to the present system of MCAs? I understand that both France and Italy are in a position similar to ours. Will he therefore try to coordinate this opposition to force the Common Market Ministers, at their December meeting, to alter the MCA set-up?
    Mr. Silkin: The question will certainly come up at the December meeting. The House need have no fear of that at all. It is right that not only the Government but the industry should now be coordinating their efforts.

    Snares
    Miss Fookesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ban the use of snares.
    Mr. Strang: My right hon. Friend the Minister has no powers to do so; but in its advisory work on control of pests, my Department is at all times concerned to prevent avoidable suffering caused by snares, or unintended risks to other creatures.
    Miss Fookes: Who does have the power to ban the use of snares?
    Mr. Strang: Parliament would have to give the Government such powers, but I can assure the hon. Lady that we recognise that this is a form of pest control which should be used only in very exceptional circumstances. The problem is that in some cases there are no satisfactory alternatives.

    Foodstuffs (Imports)
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps he proposes to take for easier access into the United Kingdom for efficiently produced foodstuffs from outside the EEC in accordance with the resolution of the House of 16th March 1977.
    Mr. John Silkin: I refer the hon. Member to the section on the reform of the common agricultural policy in the letter of 30th September 1977 from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the General Secretary of the Labour Party, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Marten: Following on the principle enunciated earlier by my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer)—who have now seen the light about the folly of the CAP, albeit only with regard to mandarin oranges—can the Minister explain why in the case of hard wheat, which is available in plentiful supply on the world market at £75 a ton and which is not produced in the Common Market, we have to pay £37 a ton import duty, which can only put up the price of bread in this country?
    Mr. Silkin: There are a number of requirements of the CAP that we shall have to work on. I do not think it can be done immediately. I say that quite clearly. It will be done over a period of a few years. The question raised by the hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly one of the factors that we shall have to deal with. It is a very important one indeed.
    Mr. Jay: Can my right hon. Friend confirm the report that large quantities of the butter which was sold cheap to the Soviet Union have now been sold back to Italy at a large profit to the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Silkin: I cannot confirm the report, because it is being investigated and no one yet knows the truth of it, but the fact is that the real sin lies in exporting butter at 17p a pound, or whatever it is, to Eastern Europe when many people within the Community would like cheap butter. It was for that reason that I got the butter subsidy.
    Mr. Skinner: That is not the real sin. The real sin was going in.

    Animals (Exports)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action has been taken to implement the O'Brien Committee Report on the Export of Live Animals for Slaughter.
    Mr. Terry Walkerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to conclude his review of the export of live animals from the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Strang: The main recommendations of this report were that a permanent ban on the export of animals for slaughter was not justified and that the animals' best protection lay in the introduction of common European welfare regulations. The Government, with the approval of the House, decided in January 1975 that sufficient progres had been made in Europe and in improving national surveillance and controls to justify the resumption of the trade to those few countries which had adequate welfare safeguards.
    As my hon. Friends are aware, my right hon. Friend the Minister announced in July a review of the developments in the export of live animals since its
    710
    resumption, and I expect this to be completed early in the new year.
    Mr. Lipton: I do not thank my hon. Friend for that reply at all. Will he say why it is that after so long excuses are still being made for the continuation of this horrible traffic? Some of us are getting sick and tired of the excuses being made for not taking adequate and immediate action on this matter.
    Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend may not be thankful for my reply, but he will at least welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend is setting up an inquiry into the matter. I am hopeful that the results that will come out of that inquiry will respond in some way to my hon. Friend's concern.
    Mr. Terry Walker: Will my hon. Friend give an asurance that when this review does become public we shall have a chance to debate it in the House?
    Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend will recognise that that is a matter for the Leader of the House, but of course there will be a great deal of interest in the outcome of this review.
    Mr. Charles Morrison: Can the Minister say how many prosecutions there have been for breaches of the regulations on the export of animals? Is he satisfied that those who are responsible have upheld the regulations and are doing so properly?
    Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to await the outcome of the review, when we shall be able to bring all this information together.

    GARSTON
    Mr. Loydenasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Garston.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Loyden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he visited my constituency he would discover the resentment and bitterness expressed not only by firemen but by many of my constituents who support the legitimate demands of the firemen? Many of us on the Government

    711
    side of the House feel that a settlement is not only possible but is now becoming an urgent necessity.
    The Prime Minister: I would expect to find some bitterness. Indeed, I have detected it myself when I have been picketed or demonstrated against by firemen in many parts of the country. But I hope that my hon. Friend will tell his constituents that there will be equal bitterness and resentment or even greater bitterness and resentment, if, as a result of settlements which spread through the economy, we were to have much higher unemployment, much higher prices and a return to the inflation of two years ago.
    It is for this reason that we are taking the stand that we are. As to a settlement, I agree with my hon. Friend that the concern of the firemen is genuine. There is no reason why a number of elements should not be put together in this dispute to form a settlement. There is the long-term formula that I have discussed with the firemen and the possibility of underwriting it. There is the prospect on hours. There is the guaranteed phasing in of a settlement, and there is the 10 per cent. that the firemen have been offered immediately. I see no reason at all why this should not be put together to form a constructive settlement on which the firemen should return to work.
    Mr. Brotherton: If the Prime Minister cannot go to Garston will he go to Bootle and tell the firemen there that he disapproves entirely of their action in picketing the accommodation of the soldiers who are employed fighting fires in Liverpool and who are paid considerably less money than are the firmen?
    The Prime Minister: The Fire Brigades Union national executive has indicated to all its members that it does not wish picketing to take place in the places where soldiers are.
    Mr. Brotherton: They are picketing in Bootle.
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman does not seem to be up to date with the situation, I can tell him that the local Fire Brigades Union has withdrawn its pickets from that area. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make the appropriate correction.
    Miss Maynard: On the subject of inflation, how can my right hon. Friend persist in his arguments in view of the high level of unemployment throughout the Western world and also in Britain? How can he say that inflation is still fuelled by excessive demand? Would it not be better to have higher wage awards in order to increase demand and thereby reduce unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is putting words into my mouth. I did not say that excessive demand was the cause of this at all. What I am saying, and what is not sufficiently appreciated, is that especially in manufacturing industry, on which we depend so much, the level of comparative wage settlements is of very great importance for competitive purposes. In the United States today settlements are taking place at 8 per cent., in Japan they are 8·8 per cent., in the Federal Republic 7 per cent., and in France 12·4 per cent. Therefore, 10 per cent. settlements in this country are by no means out of the way. We shall lose our competitive position and create greater unemployment unless this is fuly recognised. My hon. Friend would be doing a far greater service if she were to put this across to her constituents.
    Mr. Prior: How can the Prime Minister expect to have the support of the country in pursuing his policies when he cannot even control his own Back Benchers?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) I have always proceeded on the basis that the Lord loveth whom he chasteneth. On the whole, I think that she prefers me to the right hon. Gentleman.

    MINISTERS' NEWSPAPER ARTICLES
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Prime Minister what advice or instructions he as Prime Minister has given concerning the publication of newspaper articles by members of his Government.
    The Prime Minister: Ministers are not debarred from contributing to a newspaper on occasion for the purpose of supplementing other means of informing the public about the work of their Department.
    Mr. Tebbit: Was the Prime Minister told that I let his office know, in order to enable him to compose an unambiguous answer, that this question arose from an article in The Guardian by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment? In this article the Under-Secretary opposed any return to free collective bargaining. In view of the article, and the reported remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is the Prime Minister still committed to free, unfettered collective pay bargaining?
    The Prime Minister: I was very grateful to the hon. Member for telephoning my office this morning, although somehow I do not think he did so in order to help me. I understand that this article, or what has now been turned into an article, was a speech that my hon. Friend made to his constituency Labour Party general management committee. Even Ministers are entitled to talk about these matters to their constituency parties.
    As for free collective bargaining, I ceased to worship that 10 years ago. [Interruption.] Yes, I went to the TUC Congress and said it there. I do not think that collective bargaining is the means of obtaining justice and fair play in this country, but at the moment I do not know a better system.
    The hon. Member might look at the points that I looked at in the Under-Secretary's speech. It has always been my position that
    "no real advances are possible without TUC backing and direct involvement".
    In saying that, my hon. Friend was pointing out that arising out of the present difficulties and discontents there must be continuing discussion about the ways and means of improving the system.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: If there is no justice in collective bargaining, will the Prime Minister publish an article explaining what justice there is in a pay policy that discriminates against the most vulnerable workers in the public service, such as the firemen, or those in the private sector who are most susceptible to Government sanctions, and leaves the most powerful workers alone and unscathed? Is it not time now to end this anomalous and iniquitous policy—
    Mr. Speaker: Come to the point.
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is not reinforcing my view about the difficulties, weaknesses, ills and evils associated with the present system. Its advantages—the main advantage is one that I wish to see the trade union leaders practise this year—lie in moderate wage claims. They do not have to claim excessive increases. In future there will be public discussion, and the Chancellor also is entitled to a little thinking about one of the major problems facing this country at present. We might have a little more thinking from the Opposition Benches on this matter. Their total lack of policy on such things was exposed in the Financial Times yesterday.
    Mr. Pym: Will the Prime Minister say whether he agrees with the Chancellor's thinking? If Ministers are advocating a phase 4 pay policy, and if the Chancellor is actually suggesting it, unless the Prime Minister repudiates it the House has no alternative but to presume that this is now the pay policy of this Government.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) is doing very well in his capacity as a substitute. I am afraid that I simply will not be pinned down by the right hon. Member or by anybody else on what future pay settlements will be in the autumn of 1978. I have enough to do to get through the autumn of 1977 first. However, in relation to next year, I can say that if we have moderate settlements to look forward to—and we already have some in a number of areas—we can be certain that the retail price index will be so much lower next year that there will not be the same incentive to claim exceptional wage increases. There is no reason for the right hon. Gentleman to conclude that any decisions will be taken yet, or that there are likely to be any about the future of pay policy in the winter of 1978. I say that so that I can spare the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) his supplementary before he asks it.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for 1st December.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. I also met Governer Brown of California. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
    Mr. Roberts: Will the Prime Minister have another go at clearing up the very messy situation left after the Chancellor talked with the Manifesto Group last night? If the Prime Minister does not like free collective bargaining, as he has told us today, will he continue with what Mr. Gormley calls "the most involuntary voluntary policy"?
    The Prime Minister: The guidelines were published in the White Paper last July, and that is what we are adhering to. I shall not condemn anyone in this House—not the Chancellor nor the Under-Secretary for Employment, not even the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)—[Interruption.] Perhaps I shall exempt him, after all—for trying to think ahead about the way in which we can get a rational approach to wages in this country without having excessive settlements that are likely to lead to inflation.
    Mr. Pardoe: The Prime Minister may rest assured that I was not going to ask him about phase 4, because I am much more concerned about phase 3. Will he accept that if the present rate of wage settlements in the private sector continues as for the remaining part of phase 3 up to July 1977, the rate of price increases will rise very rapidly in the second half of 1978? What is he doing to enforce the guidelines in the private sector?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that we can draw that conclusion. I believe that only 3 per cent. of wage earners in this country have made settlements. Many are waiting to see what happens. I was told yesterday and the House will have read about what I million local authority wage earners were saying about a current dispute. A great many people are waiting. It is not right to suggest that there will be a great excess. Nobody can say that, when such a small proportion have settled. It is the Government's responsibility, within budgetary limits and in other ways, to try to prevent people in the private sector from saying that they did it because the Government did it.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of having a word with the German Minister of Labour who is visiting London this week and others like him, such as the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who are implacably opposed to the temporary employment subsidy? The Prime Minister should tell them that Britain intends to continue with the TES because of its importance to the textile and clothing industry.
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that in the middle of a world recession it would be absolutely idiotic to follow the suggestions of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) who says that all rescues and subsidies are harmful. I have never heard a more stupid expression in the 33 years that I have been in this House.
    Mr. Michael Latham: In view of the motion on the Order Paper by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and other Labour Members about the Government's sanctions policy, and their attack upon it, will the Prime Minister seek from the House a legal basis for his 10 per cent. pay policy and for his sanctions, neither of which have such a legal basis?
    The Prime Minister: The answer in both cases is "No".
    Mr. Ashley: Why do the Government not suggest an institution such as the National Board for Prices and Incomes to operate alongside their voluntary pay policy?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the experience of the Prices and Incomes Board in the past shows all too clearly that this kind of institution cannot operate without the full consent and support of those who intend to control or take part in it. That is why I have always insisted that whatever the difficulties in a democratic society like ours, we shall not succeed without the support of the trade unions in these matters. That is why my efforts at the moment have been bent on winning public and trade union opinion to our side. What is more, we are holding it remarkably well.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Originally the Government's guideline were 6 per cent.

    717
    on wage rates and 10 per cent. on earnings. Are they now 10 per cent. on wage rates and 15 per cent. on earnings?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The Government's original guidelines were 10 per cent. on national earnings, and settlements well within single figures. We would like to retain that situation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Whitelaw: Will the Leader of the House please state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Lord of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 5th DECEMBER—Supply [2nd Allotted Day]: debate on a motion to take note of the First to Tenth Reports from the Select Committee on Public Accounts in Session 1976–77 and the related Treasury Minute and Northern Ireland Memorandum.
Motion relating to the Sheriff (Removal from Office) Order.
TUESDAY 6th DECEMBER and WEDNESDAY 7th DECEMBER—Further progress in Committee on the Scotland Bill.
At the end of Tuesday, motion on the Amendment of Units of Measurement (Hydrocarbon Oil etc.) Order.
At the end of Wednesday, motion on EEC Documents on Energy Policy, R/77 Nos. 1955, 1959, 2347, 2348 and 2594, and a motion on EEC Documents on Nuclear Policy, R/77 Nos. 1901, 1956 and 1958.
THURSDAY 8th DECEMBER—Motions on Northern Ireland Orders on Emergency Provisions and Criminal Law, and on Appropriation, Electricity Service (Finance), Rates, Agricultural Wages, Supplementary Benefits and Road Races.
FRIDAY 9th DECEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 12th DECEMBER—Supply [3rd Allotted Day]: the House will be asked to agree the Civil and Defence Votes on Account and the Winter Supplementary Estimates.
There will be a debate on a subject to to be announced later.
718
Perhaps I may add, Mr. Speaker, that, subject to progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Friday 16th December until Monday 9th January 1978.
Mr. Whitelaw: Is it not a most extraordinary situation that when the Prime Minister goes next week to speak to the other Heads of Governments in the EEC he will protest that he is using his best endeavours to get the European Assembly Elections Bill through the House? Has not the Leader of the House triumphed, because apparently there will be no endeavours at all next week to advance that Bill? How on earth can the Leader of the House justify the Prime Minister's position? Of course, the Leader of the House can justify his own position, but I do not see how that can apply to the Prime Minister, who is supposed to be using his best endeavours.
Mr. Foot: The most extraordinary aspect of the situation is the right hon. Gentleman's excitement.
Mr. Whitelaw: I am not excited.
Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Gentleman is not excited after all, we have restored the status quo. If he is a little patient, he will see that we are proposing to make fresh progress with the Bill before Christmas. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which Christmas?"] This Christmas. We are making some progress today. We shall see what happens to the Bill, but we hope that we shall be able to make good progress before Christmas, and no doubt we shall be able to discuss next week the important question that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Whitelaw: The Government keep pretending that they intend to use their best endeavours, but that is not true. Nothing is happening at all. One cannot have a best endeavour, or even an endeavour, when one does not seek to make progress on a Bill but goes ahead with other matters. Let me put this to the right hon. Gentleman without any question of my becoming excited: if the right hon. Gentleman proceeds in this way, the blame for not meeting the target date on direct elections will lie entirely on the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House.
Mr. Foot: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's sensitivity, if not excitement, on this subject. No doubt that will be one of the aspects that will crop up in the debates we shall be holding on Tuesday of the following week. I hope that if we proceed then, I shall have the right hon. Gentleman's congratulations on the success of my best endeavours.
Mr. Terry Walker: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding before Christmas a debate on the proposed plan by British Airways to buy foreign aircraft to replace the present fleet? If he cannot arrange a debate, will he ask the Secretary of State for Trade to make a statement in the House?
Mr. Foot: I understand the interest of the House and of my hon. Friend in this matter. I cannot promise a debate unless there is an opportunity through some of the various ways that are open to hon. Members before Christmas. No doubt there will be a statement, if that is thought desirable by the House. I emphasise that there are other opportunities for discussing these matters before we depart for Christmas.
Mr. David Steel: Since the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that the Opposition are keen to use every means possible to help to obtain direct elections—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Opposition were displaying their best endeavours. Since this enthusiasm is being displayed, will the Leader of the House undertake, if possible, to try to obtain before Christmas the decision of the House on the system of election for the European Assembly?
Mr. Foot: It would be sensible for the House as a whole, in view of the controversies that surround this matter, to settle that matter before Christmas. We are prepared to take steps to try to ensure that that happens, and the arrangements can make that perfectly possible.
Mr. Donald Stewart: In view of the great anxiety felt in all parts of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange an early debate on the steel industry?
Mr. Foot: I am second to none in this House in my interest in the steel industry,
720
and I know that that interest is shared by many hon. Members. I cannot promise a debate before Christmas on the matter generally, but it is a matter that at some stage will have to be debated thoroughly in the House.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my right hon. Friend say how soon the House will debate the Town and Country Planning General Development (Amendment) Order 1977, on which there are already motions tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the House—motions pointing to the serious effects on conditions in our towns and, potentially, in the countryside?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise a debate on that matter before Christmas, but we shall examine the opportunities that are open. There are other opportunities for debate, apart from those provided by the Government.
Mr. Molyneaux: With regard to a matter that is far more important than legislation on European elections, namely the Northern Ireland business on Thursday, will the Leader of the House use his best endeavours to ensure that a business motion is tabled to permit the House to extend the time for such debate up to three-and-half hours on the Appropriation Order?
Mr. Foot: I shall do my best to ensure that we have adequate time for that debate. We have reached agreement on these matters on previous occasions in the interests of hon. Members from Northern Ireland, and indeed of hon. Members in all parts of the House. I hope that we shall be able to take a similar course next Thursday.
Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I share his enthusiasm for the direct elections Bill but that it is strongly rumoured that there is a possibility of a Merchant Shipping Bill being introduced if we get the direct elections Bill through quickly? Can he give an assurance that if that legislation comes forward, it will be introduced in this House and will contain no penal clauses to which trade union hon. Members might find objection and which would spoil an otherwise perfectly acceptable Bill?
Mr. Foot: I shall not comment on what my hon. Friend said about penal

721
clauses. I understand the representations that he, other hon. Members and trade unionists have made on this subject and proper account will be taken of them. The Merchant Shipping Bill figured in the Queen's Speech. We could not give an absolute guarantee that we would get it through this Session, but it is very high on the list of measures that we should like to get through and the speedier the House can be in dealing with some other matters, the better will be the chances of proceeding with the Merchant Shipping Bill.
Mr. Crouch: Will the right hon. Gentleman have second thoughts about the business for next week? On the face of it, the business looks not just stupid but utterly ridiculous. Here we are, in the Government's expression, looking inwards to our island problems of Scotland and Ireland—but not daring to look overseas to Europe. Are the Government so half-hearted in this matter?
Mr. Foot: If there is any absurdity here, it is in the hon. Gentleman's comments. We are debating today the Bill to which he referred. We shall be debating it again before Christmas. So it is absurd to suggest that the House is not getting plenty of time to proceed with the Bill. We may have to have further time later. It is much shorter than some other Bills. It is absurd, when we are discussing the Bill today, to suggest that we are not giving attention to it.
Mr. Whitehead: My right hon. Friend seems to have promised all but two and a half days of the available time before Christmas, but could he find one day in the last week before the Christmas Recess or in the first week after our return for a debate on the Services Committee's report on secretarial and research services, bearing in mind the constraints of the financial year which may necessarily delay any scheme that is approved?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise that debate before Christmas, but I promise that we shall have it at a fairly early stage after we return. We are committed to it and it would be wrong for the House to delay the matter. I believe that the House should have the chance to approve or disapprove the report—I trust that we shall approve it—before the
722
new financial year starts so that we can operate in the way suggested in the report.
Mr. Rhodes James: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that when the House debates the rate support grant order we shall have a full day's debate and not a half day as we had last year?
Mr. Foot: We are seeking to provide a full day for the debate.
Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of my right hon. Friend's answer to the Leader of the Liberal Party, can he undertake that if progress in Committee on the direct elections Bill is not very fast during the two days already promised, he will consider assigning a third day before Christmas?
Mr. Foot: I do not know about assigning a third day if we are to carry out our obligations on other subjects, including, for example, a debate on the rate support grant order. However, there is another method by which my hon. Friend's request might be met, namely the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition last week. That could be considered. It is much better for the House to proceed with the debate today and see how that progresses and then make up our minds about how we approach the matter the week after next.
Mr. Rossi: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a full one and a half hours is given to the Prayer against the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order in which there is considerable interest inside and outside the House? Will he also ensure that the debate is held on the Floor of the House and not in Committee?
Mr. Foot: I shall have to look at that proposition before giving any undertaking.
Mr. Jay: Is it not extraordinary that when the Conservative Party professes to be using its best endeavours to get the direct elections Bill through, it has not thought it worth while to impose an effective Whip today?
Mr. Foot: As my right hon. Friend knows, I never like to inquire too closely into the delicate matter of whipping on either side of the House.
Mr. Bowden: Has the right hon. Gentleman had the chance to study Early-Day Motion No. 105 in my name on the urgent need for a settlement of the firemen's pay dispute? Will he concede that this is a constructive motion, and will he find time for the House to debate the dispute, because I believe that some useful ideas will be forthcoming from all parts of the House?
[That this House, fully aware of the desperate need for the settlement of the firemen's pay dispute, urges Her Majesty's Government to call an immediate joint meeting composed of employers' representatives from the local authorities, Government Ministers and officials of the Fire Brigades Union to discuss the ending of the dispute based on a formula comprising: (a) immediate payment of 10 per cent., (b) reduction of the standard working week from 48 to 42 hours per week, (c) payment of substantial compensation for personal injury or loss of life, and (d) during the three years 1978 to 1980 to increase the basic pay of a qualified fireman to not less than the average male industrial wage plus 10 per cent. and this level to be maintained from 1981 onwards.]
Mr. Foot: I am not sure whether such a debate would be the best way of dealing with this matter. We had a debate on the subject under our emergency procedures a week or two ago. That was the right way to proceed then. We shall have to see what develops.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on the misuse by the Government of discretionary powers granted under the Industry Act and other measures which were specifically designed to sustain and maintain employment, but which are now being used to threaten workers who have negotiated agreements above 10 per cent?
Mr. Foot: I do not accept what my hon. Friend says about the misuse of such powers by the Government. I refer him to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a few minutes ago.
Mr. Peter Walker: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Early-Day Motion in my name and the names of 70 right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House concerning legal aid to
724
handicapped persons against whom Government Departments have made appeals? In view of the statement of the Attorney-General that the Government are unwilling to extend legal aid to t these people, will he arrange an urgent debate on this topic?
[That this House deplores the fact that when the Secretary of State appeals against an award to a handicapped person, an award that has been confirmed by the Medical Appeal Tribunal, the legal costs of the Secretary of State are met out of public funds whilst the handicapped person, no matter how impoverished, is not entitled to any form of legal aid, and urges the Government to take immediate action to remove this intolerable burden upon handicapped persons.]
Mr. Foot: I certainly appreciate the importance of this matter. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is raising one aspect of it in an Adjournment debate during the week. What he has proposed is a more elaborate proposition than the matter that he may be raising directly. There are opportunities before the recess for hon. Members to raise exactly this sort of matter. Some hon. Members—I do not include the right hon. Gentleman in this category —sometimes underrate the possibilities that exist for them to raise some questions.
Mr. Henderson: Is the Leader of the House aware that there will be considerable disappointment inside and outside the House that he has not seen fit to give us the right to make a decision whether Sheriff Thomson should have the right to come to the Bar of the House and that the right hon. Gentleman has put the debate on at an hour that is not appropriate to its constitutional importance and has given no indication that he is prepared to extend the time to allow more hon. Members to discuss this matter thoroughly? Should not Sheriff Thomson at least have as fair a trial as he has given others in the Sheriff Court?
Mr. Foot: I suggest that the debate should be extended until midnight. That is some extension. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman and all others concerned with this matter that Parliament has laid down the statute under which the dismissal of a sheriff in Scotland can take place. That was incorporated in an Act passed through the House in 1971. The

725
Secretary of State has abided exactly by the procedures laid down in that Act. The debate will be taking place in exactly the form laid down in the 1971 measure.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a statement and a Standing Order No. 9 application to follow. I shall call one more hon. Member from each side of the House.
Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to find time to discuss the behaviour of publicly-owned industries which provide services to the general public and which seem to be neglecting the social aspect of their responsibilities? One example is the proposal of the Post Office to abolish the 2p call in public call-boxes and to substitute a 5p call, which would make life very difficult for many pensioners and others on low incomes.
Mr. Foot: I appreciate the general importance of the matter raised by my hon. Friend, particularly in the preamble to his question. It is undoubtedly a matter that could be raised during one of the various times allotted by the House for such matters. It could be raised before the Christmas Recess.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: If the level of pay settlements is to reflect the level of unemployment and inflation in this country in the next nine months and if, as the Prime Minister says, 80 per cent. of working people support a level of pay increases not above 10 per cent., can the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made on how the Government intend to get over the problem that most trade union leaders feel bound to ask for substantially more than 10 per cent. in a way that will be detrimental to their members?
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman raises a general economic question that has figured in debates that we have already had in this Session. No doubt it will figure prominently in many of the economic debates that we shall have throughout the rest of the Session.
Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for interrupting, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want to question your decision to limit questions on the business to 10 minutes to 4 o'clock. However, the Leader of the House has
726
totally surprised the House by announcing that the House will not sit in Committee on the European Assembly Elections Bill next week. In those circumstances, would it not be reasonable to have a few more comments on this subject to register the disapproval of the House?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Neil Marten.
Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise the same point, but from a different point of view. I see that there is a motion on the Order Paper that we should go on until any hour tonight. As I shall be one of those who will go on until any hour tonight, would it not be appropriate to get in a few more questions now, as it is we who will suffer? I think that this is an issue of fairly big importance as a general principle. Questions should be allowed to go on for a little longer if the House is subsequently going on for a long time.
Mr. Speaker: I must be fair to the House and let the hon. Gentleman get to his subject of direct elections.
Mr. Pym: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on the Opposition Benches appreciate his forthcoming response to the Leader of the Liberal Party, when he indicated that he thought it would be useful and a good idea if the House decided the method of election to the European Assembly before Christmas? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the only way in which that can be done is by tabling a motion to take Clause 3 out of time. Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate when he intends to put such a motion on the Order Paper?
Mr. Foot: If I may be permitted to reply to the right hon. Gentleman—I do not know whether he was raising a point of order—the only way in which the matter can be dealt with before Christmas is not as the right hon. Gentleman describes. After we have seen how the debate proceeds today, it may be evident when we come to the matter the week after next that we shall be able to have a debate without any special motion being tabled.
Mr. Humphrey Atkins: The right hon. Gentleman must know that that will not happen.
Mr. Foot: It could perfectly well happen. I do not know whether the Opposition Chief Whip has issued a threat. I do not like to hear such words emanating from the right hon. Gentleman. He has almost threatened that it will not happen. The way in which debates develop does not depend solely on propositions made by the Government. If it becomes evident that there is no chance of settling the matter before Christmas, I shall consider seriously the proposition that the Leader of the Opposition put forward last week. However, I think that it is much better for the House to proceed in the way that I have described. I shall consider the other proposition if we are not to settle the matter in the way I have outlined. Whatever view may be taken by the House, whether it is against the proposition of the regional list or for it for example, I believe that there would be considerable advantage for the House as a whole if a decision could be reached before Christmas.
Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench keep on pressing for speed on this issue—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman address his point of order to me? His Front Bench colleagues are not my responsibility.
Mr. Marten: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. My Front Bench colleagues keep on presing for speed on the European Assembly Elections Bill. Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that you can somehow bring your pressure, which is considerable, to bear upon the Europeans to cause them to make up their minds about the pay of these Members? I ask that question—[Interruption.]—because the Minister has said—this is not a silly point—that we must decide that issue before the Bill goes through.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time and he knows that he has got away with two sentences more than he should have been allowed to utter.
Sir Bernard Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I may, I wish to refer back to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). Of course, I do not wish to question your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that business ques-
728
tions should come to an end when you said. However, I am sure that you must now be aware, Mr. Speaker, that there is a growing dissatisfaction on both sides of the House about the way in which the business of the House is conducted. To allow no more than 20 minutes of effective questioning of the Leader of the House on the way in which the business is to be arranged for the coming week, and for weeks ahead, is. I suggest, to prevent expression of the deep dissatisfaction on the part of many hon. Members, with the result that the real views of hon. Members are not being heard on the Floor of the House. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider whether it should not be normal practice to allow, as long as there are hon. Members willing to ask question, at least an hour and a half for business questions on Thursday.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ronald Bell.
Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said, Mr. Speaker, that you would allow one more question from each side of the House. After that you allowed my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) to ask a question urging that another day should be wasted on a Bill that no one really wants—in spite of all the fuss and noise that is made about that Bill. As you allowed your own ruling to be broken by one, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you would allow a counter-balance by another question being put from an hon. Member who does not want to see the time of the House wasted.
Mr. Speaker: On a previous occasion I indicated that when I say I shall take one more question, or two more, from either side of the House, that is not counting the Front Benches if they wish to intervene again. As for the length of time given for questions, I fear that if we allowed an hour and a half under the conditions that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) suggested, the time would be filled—and the questions would not all be about the business for the following week, which is technically what we are discussing.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Hart.

CROWN AGENTS
The Minister of State for Overseas Development (Mrs. Judith Hart): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Crown Agents.
I am today publishing the report of the committee which I appointed in 1975, under the chairmanship of His Honour Judge Fay, to
"inquire into the circumstances which led to the Crown Agents requesting financial assistance from the Government."
These terms of reference involved the committee in detailed examination of events which were complex and spread over a period of years. I am most grateful to Judge Fay and his two colleagues for the impressive way in which they carried out this heavy task. Their report is of the greatest value and the Government and the Crown Agents accept the report as a fair and searching investigation into the facts.
Simultaneously, I have published a statement giving the Government's reactions to this report. Annexed to the statement is the report of the earlier inquiry into the Crown Agents under the chairmanship of Sir Matthew Stevenson. This report is relevant to the events described in the Fay Report, and is quoted in that report. The Government have therefore decided, with the agreement of Sir Matthew Stevenson and his colleagues, that it is now right to publish the earlier report. I have, of course, consulted the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) and the Opposition on this matter.
Hon. Members will no doubt be studying all these documents, and I do not want to go over the ground again now. But the House will expect me to mention the salient points. First, the Fay Report shows that a serious state of affairs was allowed to develop over the years up to 1974. As a result, the Crown Agents incurred losses which are likely to prove to be over £200 million. As the Government statement says, we accept the report's conclusion that there were serious shortcomings on the part of the Crown Agents, and that Departments and other outside agencies contributed to the failure to prevent losses.
These losses have led the Government to emphasise on several occasions that they stand behind the Crown Agents.
730
A Government grant of £85 million was made in December 1974, and we shall be ready to put proposals to Parliament as and when further assistance is necessary. As a result, the Crown Agents' overseas principals need not fear that any part of the funds that they entrusted to the Crown Agents will be lost.
I must stress that the Crown Agents' traditional functions played no part in causing these heavy losses, nor have they been harmed by those losses. The losses arose solely from
"an unwise decision to operate as financiers on own-account",
to use the words in paragraph 422 of the Fay Report. That course of action has now been decisively reversed. The Government statement summarises the corrective action that my predecessors and I have taken since 1974 in respect of defects in the relations between the Crown Agents and Departments which the report identifies as major factors in the disasters.
There was uncertainty over the Crown Agents' status and relationship to the Government. These have been defined. The Government were receiving wholly inadequate information on the Crown Agents' affairs. New arrangements now ensure that we get full and regular reports. Whereas there was insufficient control or direction by Ministers, clear directives now exist, and I am consulted by the Crown Agents on all major policy decisions. I am therefore confident that nothing like the events described in the report could ever happen again. I lay great stress on this, because the Crown Agents' future in providing valuable services to their principals depends on it.
However, we cannot leave past events there. The question of responsibility for what went wrong needs more specific investigation than the Fay Committee was able to give it. The Prime Minister is therefore setting up a Committee of Inquiry under the Chairmanship of Sir Carl Aarvold with the following terms of reference:
"In the light of the Report of the Fay Committee to assess the nature and gravity of any neglect or breach of duty by individuals which may have occurred in the Crown Agents, the Ministry of Overseas Development, the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Exchequer and Audit Department."
That inquiry will mark the end of a sorry chapter in the Crown Agents' long

731
and otherwise distinguished history. Looking to the future, I am confident that under their present Board the Crown Agents can maintain and develop their traditional services soundly and successfully, to the benefit of all their principals.
Mr. Luce: As the Minister implied, her statement and the three public reports are not only of great importance but are extremely complex. She and the House will readily understand that it would be difficult to give a detailed reaction to them now. Nevertheless, it is surely important to get the matter into perspective without minimising the gravity of mistakes made over the last few years.
I should like to reinforce what the Minister said about the growing success of the traditional services of the Crown Agents, which have expanded in range during the last two or three years. It is well known that the Crown Agents provide a good service to under-developed countries and serve over 100 Governments and 200 public authorities. It is right that much of the credit for this success should go to the present chairman, Mr. John Cuckney, and his management team. I therefore suggest that a sharp distinction should be made between the success of the traditional services of the Crown Agents and the sad story that has arisen from the decision that the Crown Agents made in the 1960s to operate as financiers on their own account.
These so-called own account activities have been—as the Fay Report said—a saga of incompetence and inaction. It arose largely from the failure of the Crown Agents to adjust to their modem rôle and conditions. The Crown Agents are not properly accountable in the sense that a statutory authority is accountable in terms of financing and its way of carrying out business. I understand that the Government view is that this requires legislation to put it right. I do not want to make any commitment on that for my side of the House, because many of us have a distaste for legislation. Will the Minister say whether it is the Government view that there is a need for legislation?
I wish to ask a question about the use of taxpayers' money. The statement indicated that the accumulated losses of the Crown Agents were more than £200 million. How long does the Minister
732
expect that it will take the Crown Agents to carry out a complete disinvestment policy in secondary banking and in property? Has the £85 million grant been fully utilised? Can the Minister say more specifically whether further taxpayers' funds may be required to eliminate the deficit and whether, in future, those funds will be recoverable in loan form?
The Minister made a point about the establishment of a committee of inquiry. That is a major decision. Will procedures enable full safeguards to be provided for individuals against whom allegations may be made? Will the Committee be held in public? This is a matter of great importance to the individuals concerned because it appears that it will be an administrative rather than a judicial committee.
I should finally like to ask the Minister, in view of the great importance of her statement today, to pass on to the Leader of the House our view that there should be a debate on these matters as early as possible.
Mrs. Hart: I am grateful for what the Opposition spokesman has said about the importance of the traditional rôle of the Crown Agents and for his full recognition that this rôle has been increasing in its value to other countries—not only to the richer developing countries but to some of the poorer ones. I am most grateful for that because probably the whole House would want it to be made clear that in looking at the disaster of these own-account activities of the Crown Agents we are aware of—and here I endorse entirely what the hon. Gentleman said—the success of the board under Mr. Cuckney. We now have enormous confidence in him and his board.
We believe that legislation is needed. As can be seen from the statement, we now have a set of directives and working arrangements that are totally accepted. However, they are not actually enshrined in legislation and we believe that they should be. We want to legislate as soon as possible, but until then we are content that we have the arrangements in a secure enough form to make everything work with full accountability.
As for how long it is likely to take for the Crown Agents to disengage from some of their disastrous own-account

733
activities—with some of which they are still involved—there is a full account in the Fay Report on that. However, I know that the Opposition spokesman and hon. Members have not had time to read it because we had to publish the report as a Return to the Commons and therefore there has been no opportunity for the report to be studied since 2.30 p.m.
Answering the hon. Gentleman, the length of time required varies. In respect of the Australian involvement it will take some time, and it is right that it should, because a better result may be forthcoming because of that. The time needed varies according to the investments.
As for the grants, there is an £85 million grant and a £50 million Bank of England standby. The £85 million is now intact and has not been drawn upon, but we have no doubt that eventually it will be needed. Certainly, if any further money were needed we should come to Parliament for permission to use further taxpayers' money, but it is difficult to know now what the situation will be.
The Committee will be an informal one, sitting in private. There have been similar inquiries in the past.
Mr. McNamara: Rubbish.
Mrs. Hart: The Fay Committee was asked to look into the events leading up to this enormous catastrophe of the Crown Agents. It was not asked to consider what steps the Government might or should take in relation to particular individuals involved in the Crown Agents, or in any of the Departments involved. This inquiry will be concerned with those matters. It has a dual nature. There are some people who will need to have their credentials cleared, to have their innocence established, and there are others against whom it may be that this inquiry will say that some form of disciplinary action might have to be taken. This needs to be inquired into. That is why the Government came to the view that this should take place.
The inquiry will sit in private. Anyone attending it will have the right to take with him either a legal adviser or any other person he wishes. It is not a formal inquiry under the 1921 Act. We shall see how best to deal with its conclusions when we receive them.
Sir G. de Freitas: Will my right hon. Friend remember that some of us who, in the course of public duty abroad and since, have regularly advised the developing countries to use the Crown Agents, will look for even greater affirmation by Ministers of the guarantees and services which these developing countries can expect to find in the Crown Agents in future?
Mrs. Hart: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. When I visit developing countries who have not hitherto used the services of the Crown Agents I find that they are ready to do so and that the Crown Agents' reputation among their overseas principals stands extremely high.
Mr. du Cann: While congratulating the right hon. Lady on the decision to publish these documents and to continue her inquiries, may I ask her to be good enough to bear in mind the point of view, which I think is finding increasing acceptance in this House that the remedy to these matters lies not in a succession of inquiries but rather in establishing in this House a better form of control of expenditure? Is she aware, concerning the Exchequer and Audit Department, that the whole House has total confidence in its ability as an audit department—
Mr. English: After this!
Mr. du Cann: —but that what is needed is to provide this House with a better investigative tool, to which end that Department should be greatly strengthened?
Mrs. Hart: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I was sufficiently anxious about the accountability to this House of the Crown Agents as to seek to give evidence to his Select Committee. My offer was not accepted because it was traditional to receive evidence only from civil servants and not Ministers. I accept that. This question of public accountability is the kernel of the whole situation. One of the problems was that before we took steps to remedy the relationships between the Crown Agents, the Ministry of Overseas Development and Parliament, the accounts of the Crown Agents were not laid before Parliament. Had they been laid before Parliament, something would have happened more rapidly, and there would

735
have been greater knowledge of what was happening. This is the crux of the matter.
Mr. George Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations on her personal perseverance in bringing this sorry tale to a full exposure? Is she aware that one sentence in this admirable report, in paragraph 327, reads oddly because it says that no one could have known in November 1973 that the skies were about to open and the deluge to fall, although that was the very month in which the former Conservative Minister responsible was told publicly in the House of Commons that there was a scandal here which was waiting to blow?
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that, although this report has exposed a large number of culprits in the story, there is one culprit which does not get blamed in the report, and that is the House of Commons? Does she recall that the House of Commons had a Committee which initiated an investigation of the Crown Agents, with great difficulty, as a result of my right hon. Friend's action and mine with the assistance of the Conservative Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) in December 1973? Yet that same Committee, in May 1974, when it could have done tremendous work, decided quite irresponsibly to suspend its investigations.
Mrs. Hart: I can confirm what my hon. Friend says, up to the point of May 1974, when I was no longer serving in the Department. I well remember the efforts some of us made in the preceding period to have a full investigation made by the Select Committee on Overseas Development. I confirm that entirely. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said about my rôle in the matter. There is one other aspect with which I know he will agree since he was one of the hon. Members who played, with great distinction, a part in the exposé of the Crown Agents which led to the setting up of the Fay Committee. In the Committee's report there is talk of a catastrophe and it is said, talking of the time when the Crown Agents had extended themselves in their "own account" activities to the point of capacity,
"It had been a time of euphoria in the fringe banking and property speculation world."
736
Land investment, land speculation, was a fashionable speculation at the time but in a different economic climate it was to prove a major embarrassment. Of course it is this which basically led to the catastrophe.
Mr. Edward Gardner: If the Minister considers, as she apparently does, that it is necessary and desirable that the financial functions and operations of the Crown Agents should continue and be preserved, may I ask her to say what steps she is now prepared to take to deal with the defects and anomalies which are so well identified and commented upon in this report?
Mrs. Hart: When the hon. and learned Gentleman has the time to read the Government statement he will see appended to it—and it takes up quite a lot of space—all of the statements that have been made to the House of Commons on the subject of the Crown Agents over the past two years. The hon. and learned Member may be interested to know that during the period 1909 to 1973 only 18 parliamentary Questions were asked in this House on the subject of the Crown Agents. That gives the background flavour of the concern of the House and the responsibility of the Crown Agents to it.
The hon. and learned Member will also find appended one of the statements which I think was made in July 1974 in which I gave a directive to the Crown Agents to disengage from property. He will find other statements that make it clear that, despite the fact that we have not yet got legislation, remedial action has been taken. I am quite convinced that in the relationship between the Crown Agents and myself and Parliament we have now got the correct accountability which ensures that this kind of thing can never happen again.
Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this is one of the biggest Establishment scandals of all times and that this gang who ran the outfit known as the Crown Agents made the train robbers look like petty thieves? Is it not high time that my right hon. Friend came to the conclusion—unlike the one she has given us today—that she ought to get these guilty people into court instead of setting up another secret committee in which the elitist group can get together

737
again for a considerable period of time in the hope that many of the guilty people will disappear?
Will my right hon. Friend answer the other question which I have put to her many times before and which relates to the Crown Agents? When are the Government to tackle William Stern, who had £40 million worth of Crown Agents' money, taxpayers' money? When will they make sure that he is put into bankruptcy, as he should be, like other people who fall into disrepute in the way that he has?
Mrs. Hart: My hon. Friend knows, because I answered a question from him a little while ago in relation to Mr. William Stern, that there are full details of all his involvements in the Fay Committee Report. The Crown Agents have taken the formal steps necessary prior to the institution of legal proceedings that could ultimately lead to a bankruptcy petition against William Stern. The Crown Agents have gone as far as they appropriately can at the moment. There is no doubt about the concern everyone has about furthering these proceedings, if that is what is ultimately decided.
As to the rest of what my hon. Friend says, the Director of Public Prosecutions has studied the Fay Report, the supplementary report and the report which is mentioned in paragraph 73. Proceedings are being taken against one person. On the question of exchange control offences, these are still under investigation, and everything that can possibly be done in this context by the Director of Public Prosecutions is being done. Of course, some of the people who worked for the Crown Agents are no longer within that body—
Mr. Skinner: That makes no difference.
Mrs. Hart: —and they are not thought to be liable to criminal proceedings. There are, however, possibilities for civil proceedings in some cases. Everything that should be done in terms of the law is being done.
Sir M. Havers: I invite the Minister of State to reconsider the form of inquiry. The choice of chairman is admirable, but the Royal Commission on Tribunals of Inquiry, the Salmon Report, stated that
738
this sort of inquiry could lead to many injustices. A whole number of departmental officers and officials are referred to in the terms of reference, and what worries me is that with this type of inquiry, rumour breeds on rumour, the whole thing is done in secret, and those called before the inquiry do not know what it is all about. One ends up with the difficulty that there will be a real risk of injustice. I ask the Government to reconsider the type of inquiry that is to be set up.
Mrs. Hart: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that this has been the subject of the most careful consideration by the Government. There were various possible ways of inquiring further into whatever arises from the Fay Report in terms of individuals. It was only after the most careful consideration, and with full consultation with my right hon. Friends the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor and the Civil Service Department, that in the end, by balancing the pros and cons of different forms of inquiry, we came to the conclusion that this was the best form of inquiry.
We felt it was important that it should be in private, partly because some of the individuals concerned will want to establish that their rôle in the matter does not call for any condemnation whatever. The publicity attached to a public inquiry could lead to people against whom one would not wish to level any criticism being brought through this process. On the other hand, where there might be a possibility of neglect or omission of duty we thought it was best that the proceedings should be in private. There will be two other members of the inquiry, neither of whom will be civil servants.
Mr. Skinner: Put me on it.
Mrs. Hart: We have to leave it in that way. Every possibility was most carefully considered.
Mr. English: This report is surely conclusive proof, if such were necessary, of two conclusions of the Expenditure Committee on the Civil Service. First, there is no one in the Civil Service who is responsible for its efficiency as a whole, and, secondly, the report proves that the present system of public audit is out of date. Paragraph 127 of the report states,

739
for example, that there were many occasions when the auditors did not notice that some money had got lost. I ask my right hon. Friend to say in the severest terms—in private, at least—that our recommendations on audit and efficiency should be replied to, on the lines that something undoubtedly needs to be done in relation to the Government as a whole, not merely the Crown Agents or her Department.
Mrs. Hart: My best answer to my hon. Friend is to say that I have been very interested in his report and some of the conclusions that his Committee reached. I do not think that I can go beyond that. I shall not say that I have the report at my bedside every night, but almost.
Mr. Hordern: I, too, congratulate the new chairman of the Crown Agents on his excellent efforts in staunching what was a very serious situation. I ask the Minister of State to bear in mind the provisions of Department of Trade reports on business activities, and some of the dissatisfaction that has been expressed at the nature of those reports. Will the Minister of State ensure that the evidence that is brought before the Aarvold Committee is produced before the individuals who are asked to give evidence, and that they should be allowed to comment on it before the findings of that Committee are published?
Mrs. Hart: I am certain that that would be the way to conduct this inquiry. That would be the way to proceed on natural justice. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to Mr. Cuckney, who has been going into the position since the beginning of October 1974. Before he could put things right he had the job of discovering what had gone wrong.
Mr. John Mendelson: Is it not extraordinary that with the exception of the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) the questions that have been put to my right hon. Friend are almost entirely questions which, after the scandalous revelations by my right hon. Friend, have been concentrating on how people can be protected, what procedures might be adopted to see that nobody should be revealed to have committed the wrongs that they have com-
740
milted? Is it not my right hon. Friend's first duty to say here and now what she is going to need more money for? She said in her statement that the Government may have to ask for more taxpayers' money at a time when the country finds it impossible to meet the claims of firemen and others who need money urgently.
Will my right hon. Friend herself, or through the Leader of the House, give an assurance that a debate will take place before the Christmas Recess, in which the Government, without waiting for a further committee and years of inquiry, can give their full revelations, beyond the published report, of their own attitude towards culpability, whether those revelations are later justified by the report or not?
Mrs. Hart: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is sitting next to me, and I am sure that he is taking full note of the desire of hon. Members that there should be a debate on this matter fairly soon. I am equally certain that it is impossible for the House to consider the matter in depth today, because people need a chance to study the documents. My hon. Friend will find that some of the questions he has raised about the precise way in which the figure of £200 million was arrived at are set out in a good deal of detail in the Fay Report.
Not all of the money has yet been drawn down, but we have to take account of the fact that there is a deficit of £200 million, and therefore it might be necessary to draw down £85 million, and, indeed, it might be necessary to draw down more. It rather depends on the degree to which the Crown Agents are able to disengage themselves at a reasonable pace and with success from some of the commitments they entered into. This point is indeterminable at the moment.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal to the House? I will do my best to call those hon. Members who have been standing throughout. It would be unfair to the House if questions and answers were very long.
Mr. Kershaw: Sometimes when a business goes into receivership it is necessary or desirable to carry on for a time in

741
order to realise the assets in the best way. Will the right hon. Lady give an assurance that that will be done in this case for the best business reasons and not in order to meet some parliamentary timetable which would otherwise be desirable?
Mrs. Hart: That applies to the disengagement from the Australian investment. That is why disengagement may take some little time.
Mr. Spearing: My right hon. Friend and I were both members of the Select Committee on Overseas Development in autumn 1974. Does she recall the part played by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) in initiating that inquiry? How much of the information then elicited is in the Fay Report? Has she any comments on that evidence and its future use?
Mrs. Hart: I do recall that period and, as I have said, the tremendous rôle played by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will find most of the evidence he has referred to in the Fay Report. It is an extremely detailed report. Every word has to be read—there is no stuffing. It is all valuable material.
Mr. Ronald Bell: While the function of the Crown Agents in the world is extremely important and is rightly buttressed by assurance from Her Majesty's Government, will the right hon. Lady realise that the loss of £200 million of public money is not something that can be disposed of by a statement at 3.30 p.m. and a private inquiry?
Will the right hon. Lady also give consideration to the fact that it began to look as if the private inquiry was going to be mainly concerned with culpability? While that is interesting, do we not need to know how the Crown Agents are to be conducted more successfully in the future? I realise that she cannot give details, but will she, if she can, in the broadest outline, give us an idea whether the Crown Agents are to make financial and investment decisions themselves in future and have the staff to do it, or whether they will rely on commercial
742
banks? How will this be done in a way which will not result in another £200 million of our money being lost?
Mrs. Hart: I am not in the least trying to dispose of a loss of £200 million by a statement after Question Time. That is the last thing in the world that I would want to do. My own reports, the Fay Committee's Report, and the fact that they are before the House are evidence of that. This is one of the most serious betrayals of public accountability of which the House can have been aware in many years. If the hon. and learned Gentleman familiarises himself with the statements I have already made, and those made by my predecessors, he will see the way in which matters are now on a better footing. Perhaps he can question me again when he has had an opportunity to read these statements.
Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we all admire the rôole that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) have played in this matter? That being so, is she further aware that we cannot understand why this new inquiry has to be in private? Is there to be fresh evidence to that inquiry which was not provided to the other inquiries? Why is there need for people to be put under a cloud of suspicion for the rest of their lives because they have been called to a private inquiry? That suspicion arises even if people are cleared, because there is always suspicion about why someone was called before such an inquiry in the first place. Are we to have any published reports from the Aarvold Committee? Is not this procedure a denial of open government? Has not enough dirt been shovelled over the years on this issue? Why should we have another establishment cover-up?
Mrs. Hart: It would have been the easiest thing for the Government to say, "We will not have a further inquiry." We took the view that that would tend to be a cover-up. We therefore decided that there must be a further inquiry. Then we had to consider exactly what kind it should be. It was largely to protect innocent individuals that we decided that it should be in private. My hon. Friend will recall, from his familiarity with earlier inquiries which were public, that there is no doubt that the moment someone is called before a public inquiry

743
there is a certain aura—the name is there. If he is an innocent individual, that is not right. That is why we took the view that this inquiry should be in private.
Mr. Body: Is the right hon. Lady in a position to give an unqualified assurance to the House that any employee of the Crown Agents, either past or present, will not have proceedings brought, or any promise that no proceedings will be brought, against him until further inquiries are over?
Mrs. Hart: All proceedings that are possible have already been taken or are the subject of investigation by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I say to hon. Members that it is no good taking the analogy of a court in this matter. When they have read the Fay Report in detail, they will see that there are possibly individuals, possibly Departments—not totally specified in the report—some of whom may prove to have conducted themselves admirably and some of whom may not have done. One cannot say that one should bring someone before a public inquiry when one is not charging him. The Committee of Inquiry will make further proceedings on the matter sub judice, as the existing charges brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions are already.
Mr. Litterick: Paragraph 389 of the Fay Report tells us simply and clearly that much of the reason for this disaster lay in what it calls "incompetence". Can my right hon. Friend tell us how many Crown servants have been sacked for this incompetence? If there were any, on what terms were they sacked? If none has been sacked, why not?
Mrs. Hart: The main answer to that is that those who might have been sacked have already left the employment of the Crown Agents.
Mr. Crouch: Is the right hon. Lady aware that what will disturb the public so much in this whole affair is that the Crown Agents were able to get away so far, to the extent of £200 million? Is she also aware that the public must also be very concerned about the fact that there was a misunderstanding in the past, before her time in office, on the part of the Crown Agents, a Government agency, that it was effectively accountable to Parliament? Will the right hon. Lady
744
say that the Committee of Inquiry will be looking beyond just this particular case of the Crown Agents as an agency and will be looking into the situation of other agencies and bodies which are now Government agencies and bodies, which should be made much more effectively accountable to Parliament in future?
Mrs. Hart: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the difficulty has been in part —not wholly—the constitutional relationship and the lack of definition in that. The Crown Agents, as Fay described them, were an emanation of the Crown and there was no responsibility to Parliament and no responsibility to the Minister. That has been remedied. We shall legislate to make certain that that is written down.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the answer is "Yes". I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked the question. As soon as the Fay Report was received, the Treasury considered this matter, in consultation with the Civil Service Department, very urgently indeed. The object was not to establish whether any other public sector organisation had incurred massive liabilities to third parties. There is no reason to believe that any other public bodies are in that position. What it seems essential to consider is whether there are bodies which ought, perhaps, to be subject to tighter monitoring and controls and to make sure that there is no looseness or lack of clarity in the relationship which could allow the non-accountability of the Crown Agents to appear in any other sphere.
Mr. Greville Janner: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the position of the Crown Agents is anomalous in many respects? Can she assure the House that if the Crown Agents cease to be an emanation of the Crown, the Crown Agents as such will be liable to prosecution, as are all other bodies that are not in that position, and not merely the individuals who have acted for it?
Will my right hon. Friend also assure the House that this body will be under the political control of the House so that no longer shall we have the situation that the Crown Agents supply goods to the armed forces of General Amin saying that they are not responsible to the House at all because they are a private body serving

745
their customers, and when we ask for details about whom they are serving and why, they say that it is confidential and none of the business of the House?
Mrs. Hart: My hon. and learned Friend will want to study what I have said on an earlier occasion about the precise method by which we hope to legislate on the Crown Agents. Indeed, it was my predecessor who made it quite clear. My hon. and learned Friend will find there that the line of responsibility is laid out absolutely clearly.
On the second point, I rather think that, as my hon. and learned Friend knows, there are other problems involved in the particular point that he has raised, and I do not think that he would wish me today to go into that very fully.

EXECUTIONS (BERMUDA)
Mr. Hooky: 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 impending execution tomorrow, Friday 2nd December, in Bermuda, of Erskine Burrows and Larry Tacklyn."
That the matter is urgent there can be no dispute. This is the final opportunity for the House to debate the matter before the men are hanged. No amount of debating after the event can be of practical consequence, and if we do not proceed to discuss it today, it will be too late.
That the matter is specific, I submit, is self-evident. I am concerned that the House should debate the intention by the Government of Bermuda to hang these two men tomorrow, and the serious consequences that may flow from that decision.
That the matter is sufficiently important to take precedence over other important business of the House I would argue for reasons I shall now give. We are the guardians of the human rights of all citizens of the United Kingdom and of our dependencies overseas. No right can be more fundamental than the right to life itself. Bermuda is a Crown colony, a non-self-governing territory, and we have solemn obligations under the Charter of
746
the United Nations for the welfare and well-being of citizens of that territory.
The House has argued many times on the subject of the abolition of capital punishment in the United Kingdom and has come to the conclusion that that punishment should be abolished in this country. I think, therefore, that if there is any question of using this punishment in a dependent territory, the House should debate the matter before any execution proceeds.
Secondly, this particular case has aroused acute public controversy in Bermuda, so much so that Members of the Bermudan Parliament, members of the Progressive Labour Party, have travelled 5,000 miles to London to press that this Parliament should debate the matter.
A petition signed by 6,000 people was presented to the Queen asking for clemency. Six thousand people, I remind the House, in the context of Bermuda is equivalent to 6 million signatures if collected in the population of the United Kingdom.
Thirdly, although the death sentence is mandatory under the law in Bermuda, I understand that no hanging has been carried out for more than 30 years. It seems remarkable that after three decades there should be a decision to reintroduce this barbaric punishment. There is reason to believe that if that is done, it will create very serious racial tension in that territory. Arising from that, I believe that there is some reason to think that the hangings could give rise to a severe threat to public order, and it would be a very grim irony if the results of these executions were to lead to disturbances in which there might even be further loss of life.
The Western world in recent years has launched a great international debate on human rights, and very properly. Some people will regard it as rather cynical if this House could not spend three hours at least to consider a matter concerning the life and death of two people in a dependent territory when we have from time to time, perfectly properly, been severely critical of the behaviour in relation to human rights of many individual Governments throughout the world. I submit, therefore, that this is a matter which the House should very properly and urgently debate.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr Hooley) gave me notice before 12 o'clock this morning that he would seek 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 impending execution tomorrow, Friday 2nd December, in Bermuda, of Erskine Burrows and Larry Tacklyn."
The House knows that I am required by the provisions of the Standing Order to decide whether the matter is proper to be discussed, but not to give any reasons for so deciding.
In this instance I have to remind the House that it has never been in order to debate the exercise of the Royal Prerogative in connection with a capital sentence while the sentence is pending. This rule is stated in general terms in "Erskine May", on page 428 of the current edition, and it has been affirmed many times in my own presence in the House by my predecessors in relation to the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy in dependent territories. In the circumstances I am not able to submit the hon. Member's application to the House.
Later—
Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will allow me, whilst accepting that I am not in any way challenging your ruling, to revert as a matter of general application to the matters raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). I accept totally your ruling, having myself made a similar application some 12 or 14 years ago with the late Sydney Silverman in the case of Riley, when we were similarly advised by Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster that the exercise of the Prerogative was not a matter that could be the subject of debate. Therefore, I do not seek in any way to challenge what you have said.
The House seems to be in this difficulty, though. The House clearly has strong feelings on this issue. We are dealing with the Creech-Jones rules, which, I understand, indicate that the Governor exclusively makes the recommendation to Her Majesty and the exercise of the Prerogative is a matter which cannot be debated. At the same time we are also dealing with what is a dependent ter-
748
ritory for which the House is ultimately responsible.
In my view, if the Government were to take the view that there was something wholly wrong and contrary to public policy for different penalties to be exactable in different parts of those territories for which we are responsible, whether it be in Bermuda, the Isle of Man, Rhodesia, or any other place, and the Government indicated that it was their intention to introduce legislation on the matter, that would be a very proper reason for a recommendation to be made to Her Majesty without a debate in the House that the executions at least be suspended while the House had time to consider the introduction of legislation.
It is with the possibility of having equality of treatment throughout all those territories for which we have a continuing responsibility that I ask you whether any indication has been given to you and, if any indication is given to you, whether we might be allowed to have a statement either by the Home Secretary or by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on this issue.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. No representation has been made to me. My personal feelings are never involved in a ruling. I am guided by precedent, and that was not an easy ruling for me to give to the House this afternoon.

CROWN AGENTS
Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. 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 loss of more than £200 million through the operations of the Crown Agents."
I make this application, Mr. Speaker, although I have not had an opportunity, as I otherwise would have had, to let you know earlier in the day that it was my intention to do so. But in doing so I am returning, as you, Mr. Speaker, and the House will know, to a good earlier tradition whereby on many occasions matters have been brought to the notice of the House and the nation at a time

749
when nobody could in advance make up his or her mind whether the Adjournment ought to be moved.
I want to link this also with another earlier practice, which to my regret and the regret of many other Members has fallen into desuetude. That was the possibility in days gone by of immediately adjourning all other business before the House to indicate the particular gravity of the information presented to the House by a member of the Executive.
I know that other procedures have been introduced to replace that earlier right of Members of the House of Commons. Question Time is one of those procedures. But, as you know, Mr. Speaker, many of those who know a great deal about the procedures of the House hold the view that this replacement is no real substitute for the earlier power of Parliament to deal immediately with something that has arisen, and to do so in such a way as to indicate to the nation at large, not so much to other Members of the House, the grave view that the House or Members of the House take of the news, the report and the submissions that have been received from a member of the Executive.
I therefore must make the application in a somewhat modified form. We all know that there would have to be a certain limited delay imposed by you, Mr. Speaker, if you were to accept this application. It would now probably be the beginning of next week before such a debate could be held, because it has not been your custom in recent years to arrange such a debate for a Friday.
My first reason for claiming urgency is that it would be an indication to the nation that the report received this afternoon from the Minister has not been received as a routine matter which can be handed on to a committee of inquiry that will sit in private but that there is an immediate reaction that regards this as such a grave scandal, of such grave proportions, that some action should be immediately initiated by the House.
My second reason for making this application is this. If a debate were to take place on Monday, over the intervening three days right hon. and hon. Members would be perfectly capable of studying
750
the report published this afternoon and of consulting additional material, and it would be possible for the nation to see that the terms of the inquiry were subject to scrutiny by the House of Commons and that no delay occurred. If a debate were arranged at a later date, it might be argued that by demanding a debate one was postponing the setting up of the committee of inquiry and the starting of its work. No one in the House wants the country to believe that any of us would wish to postpone the immediate work of the committee of inquiry, although many of us may be dissatisfied with the terms under which it is to work. For instance, if hon. Members wish to argue that it should be a committee that works in public and not in private, they should be able to do so without delay.
There is one other reason why it is urgently necessary to accept the motion and to allow a debate to proceed without delay. Everything that Parliament does has meaning only, as we all know, if it is understood by and is in tune with the mood of those outside in the electorate. The mood outside is very much concerned with matters of public expenditure and with arguments that are being adduced by the Executive on the impossibility of granting claims that many of our citizens have at present. Let it at least be seen that every kind of possible and potential demand that the Minister has indicated for further public money will be scrutinised immediately and without further delay.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) has rightly exercised the privilege of hon. Members who seek to move the Adjournment of the House on a matter that has arisen without the House having warning before 12 o'clock.
I listened with great care to the hon. Gentleman's arguments in which he claimed urgency and the importance of the subject in general. I have said when I have rejected other applications that it is for me to decide not whether a matter should be debated but whether it has urgency and should be given priority. I am persuaded that the House should have an opportunity to discuss this matter. Does the hon. Member have the leave of the House?

751
The leave of the House having been given—
The Motion stood over under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business upon Monday next.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the National Ports Council Provision of Funds Scheme 1977 (Confirmation) Order 1977 (S.I. 1977, No. 1725) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Coleman.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]
  4.54 p.m.
  The Chairman: The first amendment I propose to call—
  Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North): On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I hope that at the outset of the debate we may have your guidance on a vital issue.
  It appears from the notice in the "No" Lobby that you have not selected, for reasons I do not know, a number of important amendments. As this is by common consent a crucially important constitutional Bill, I think that you will agree that it is essential that major constitutional issues should be fully debated in the House before we take a decision. None of us would wish to have anything like a repetition of what happened on the European Communities Bill when very few amendments were called, no amendments were agreed, and the guillotine was imposed at an early date. That has left a sour taste in the mouths of right hon. and hon. Members and of the country.
  I have in mind a number of amendments on pages 422 and 423 of the Amendment Paper in the names of a number of my hon. Friends and myself. All of them raise important constitutional legal questions affecting the election of Members of the EEC Assembly if the Bill is passed.
  I call your attention to Amendment No. 6, in Clause 1, page 1, line 8, after first "the" to insert "advisory and supervisory". You will be aware, Mr. Murton, that Article 137 of the Treaty of Rome describes the Assembly as "advisory and supervisory", no doubt in order to make clear that the Assembly has no legislative power. As that is one of the major issues concerning this Bill, surely the words "advisory and supervisory" should be considered by this Committee.

  753
  Amendment No. 8 deals with the question whether Members elected in accordance with this Bill when it becomes an Act should be named in a resolution of the House of Commons before they take part in the procedures of the Assembly. Amendment No. 9 provides that a writ of this House must authorise the election of a Member to the Assembly.
  The other amendments I have in mind are Nos. 10, 11 and 12, which raise various issues, including the question of the expenses that will be incurred by Members of the Assembly, the emoluments they will receive and whether such emoluments should be much higher than those received by Members of this Parliament. Whatever we think of the amendments, the issue with which they deal will arouse great interest in the country. It would be unfortunate, and we might hear further allegations of elitism and goodnes knows what, if this issue were not even discussed here.
  I am not aware whether you, in your wisdom and discretion, Mr. Murton, have refrained from calling the amendments on the ground that they are out of order, or whether it is simply the case that they have not been selected. It would help the Committee to know—because, after all, we may have to table a good few other amendments—which of the amendments were out of order and which have simply not been selected at your discretion and the reasons for the decision in each case. It is essential for us to know that. Whatever the reasons be, I hope that it is in order for me to urge you very strongly to reconsider your decision not to call the amendments.
  Mr. Neil Marten rose—
  The Chairman: Is this further to the point of order?
  Mr. Marten: Were you about to reply to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), Mr. Murton?
  The Chairman: Not at this moment.
  Mr. Marten: I should like to support what the right hon. Gentleman has said, particularly on Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. I take as my text the reply of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 24th Novem-
  754
  ber. When asked whether the Government planned
  "to make any representations in the Council of Ministers about the proposed pay for European Members of Parliament",
  the hon. Gentleman said:
  "We have made clear our view that this is a matter which should be decided before the first elections are held and which needs full and careful consideration by the member States." —[Official Report, 24th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 883.]
  The Leader of the House gave a similar reply, but I cannot recall the Hansard reference.
  5.0 p.m.
  If it is the Government's view that amendments dealing with the question of pay and allowances of the Members of the European Assembly, if any, should be fully discussed by member States—which means member Parliaments—I do not see how we can possibly do that if the amendments are not called. It is rumoured that the pay is to be £25,000 a year plus enormous allowances, and that is quite shocking to any hon. Member, but the amendments present us with an opportunity to discuss the question. I do not think that the House of Commons should give a Third Reading to the Bill until the pay and allowances and conditions of Members of the Assembly are laid down and we know what we are voting about.
  There is also the question of the taxation of the pay of Members of the Assembly. I have tabled innumerable questions to Treasury Ministers to discover whether the pay and allowances of MEAs, if any, will be subject to United Kingdom taxation. Selection of the amendments would enable us to discuss these matters. Therefore, I ask you kindly to reconsider your decision, Mr. Murton, not to call them.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I rise further to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and before you, Mr. Murton, have replied to him, because I gathered that you thought that it might be more convenient to hear further submissions on essentially the same point, to which I am sure you will have given attention.
  There is no question—and I am sure that it was not involved in the point of order raised by the right hon. Member

  755
  for Battersea, North—of challenging or inquiring into the reasons for the exercise by the Chair of its function of selection. Normally there is no essential ground on which the guidance of the Chair needs to be sought in open Committee on the question of order. However, on this Bill it is of material importance to the Committee to have guidance from you, Mr. Murton, on the rules of order in accordance with which certain amendments may have been found by you to be out of order.
  You will recall, Sir, the events surrounding the commencement of the Committee stage of the European Communities Bill in 1972. May I remind you of the ruling of your predecessor in the Chair at the time? When it was drawn to his attention that a series of major amendments had not been selected, he indicated that they had not been selected because they were out of order. In other words, it was not in the exercise of his discretion to select, but, because he was bound by the rules of order, those amendments, which were major amendments going to the principles and varying the modalities of the Bill, had not been selected by him. He said:
  "The reason for this is the nature of the Bill itself. The Bill, as the Explanatory Memorandum says, is one which makes the legislative changes which will enable the United Kingdom to comply with the obligations entailed by membership of the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, and to exercise the rights of membership."—[Official Report, 29th February 1972 Vol. 832, c. 269.]
  Your predecessor made it clear that, since the scope of the Bill and the purpose of the Bill were to make legislative changes to enable this country to comply with the obligations entailed in membership of the Community, it would be out of order for those amendments to be debated which were not in accordance with these obligations or with the exercise of these rights. Certainly many of the amendments which hon. Members at that time would have wished to move and, indeed, wished to carry went to the nature of the obligations and of the rights implicit in membership of the European Community.
  It is true, Mr. Murton, that your predecessor on that occasion referred to the Explanatory Memorandum, but the subsequent debates, both on that day and on the following day, made it clear that
  756
  it was not the Explanatory Memorandum, which in itself can be of no authority, but the Long Title and the scope of the Bill, as the Chair saw it, which were, in the view of the Chair, the binding consideration.
  I have refreshed my memory of the Long Title as an indication of the scope of the 1972 Act. It ran:
  "An Act to make provision in connection with the enlargement of the European Communities to include the United Kingdom."
  In other words, in the view of the Chair the House was simply considering—and the phrase "nuts and bolts" may still be in the memory of some hon. Members —how to implement obligations which were indefeasibly implicit in membership and to secure rights which were equally indefeasibly implicit.
  If it should be that some or all of the amendments put down to Clause 1 have not been selected on the ground that they are out of order by analogy or on the same grounds as amendments to the 1972 Bill to which I am referring, it would be of great moment to the Committee to understand that at this stage. Since you have indicated that you would find it convenient to have a fairly full submission at this stage, Mr. Murton, I shall proceed upon the assumption that, in some cases at any rate, the issue of scope was involved in the selection of amendments to Clause 1.
  I should like to make this submission to you, Mr. Murton. It is not merely important—although it is important enough—in relation to the amendments that we may be able to debate to this Bill, but it is germane to the view which this Committee takes of the obligations which lie upon the Committee in consequence of agreements entered into by Her Majesty's Government.
  The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill begins with the words:
  "The Bill gives effect to the Decision of the Council of the European Communities and to the Act annexed to that Decision."
  This, of course, is the decision of 20th September last year. If that sentence of the Explanatory Memorandum was an accurate description of the scope of the Bill, we might find ourselves in the same position as the Committee found itself in in March 1972. However, if one turns

  757
  to the Long Title of the Bill one finds that it is described merely as a Bill to
  "Make provision for and in connection with the election of representatives to the Assembly of the European Communities".
  In drafting the Long Title, the draftsman, presumably under instructions, has deliberately avoided any reference whatsoever to any obligations which might have been incurred by Her Majesty's Government, or even to the rôles of the Assembly of the European Communities. On the contrary, it would have been possible for the Government to have brought forward this Bill, certainly a Bill with that Long Title, even if there had been no decision of 20th September. Since this House sends representatives—and it is our right, if not our obligation, to do so under the Treaty—we would be perfectly entitled to lay down our own procedure for electing these representatives.
  My submission, therefore, is that the scope of the Bill and the indication of that scope given in the Long Title are such as to make it clear that we are not here legislating in order to comply with obligations and that we are in an entirely different situation from that in which we discovered ourselves when discussing the European Communities Act 1972.
  Consequently, Mr. Murton, subject to your right of selection—which is not challenged—we should be free to consider any possible alternatives to the method or conditions of election and we are not bound to have regard either to the fact of the decision of 20th September 1976 or to anything which is contained in that decision.
  You will apprehend, Mr. Murton, the great importance which many hon. Members attach to the ground on which it may appear that your decision has been taken upon the amendments which were tabled to Clause 1.
  I make only one further observation, which I hope you will permit. As I suggested earlier, the whole context in which the Committee stage of this Bill will take place will be profoundly affected by the view which is taken of the relationship of this Bill to the obligations involved in membership of the Community or the obligations which may have been undertaken—although I think that they have not been technically converted by pro-
  758
  cedures under Clause 1 of the 1972 Act into a treaty—but which might have been undertaken by the Government in their international capacity.
  Mr. Ian Mikardo: I venture to put to you, Mr. Murton, a narrow, specific point which concerns the amendments that have an effect on the pay and expenses paid to the elected members of the European Assembly. These expenses will come out of the budget of the European Community. Her Majesty's Government are the largest contributors to that budget.
  As you will know better than any of us, Mr. Murton—because it is part of the important functions of your high office—it is one of the major duties of this House to control Supply and to exercise supervision over the expenditures of moneys by the Government. In their contribution to the budget of the Communities the Government will pay a substantial part of the salaries and expenses that are paid not merely to representatives of this country in the European Assembly but to all members of the European Assembly.
  I appreciate that the totality of that pay and expenses is not a major part of the Communities' budget, but it is not an insignificant part, either. This Assembly will be quite a costly business, and we shall be paying a large fraction of that cost out of revenues provided by Her Majesty's Government. If we were not permitted to take a view about the level of pay and expenses we should be prevented from fulfilling the duty that lies upon the House to control Supply in respect of a not insubstantial piece of expenditure by Her Majesty's Government. Surely that could not possibly be right.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: May I suggest, Mr. Murton, that it would be helpful to hon. Members if you could indicate the grounds upon which you have not selected some of the amendments? I urge that upon you, out of a number of considerations. One of them is that it appears possible that you may have different considerations in mind in considering different categories.
  It would be helpful to hon. Members to know whether there were some amendments that you had not selected because

  759
  you thought them less appropriate to Clause 1 than to certain other clauses. As an example, there are Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. It might be that you did not regard them as out of order but thought that they might be more appropriately considered in another context. It would be helpful to hon. Members if they could be told whether that was the case. That would allow them the opportunity of recasting the changes they want into a form which is appropriate to the later clauses when we come to them.
  On another category, I associate myself with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said. There are obviously doubts in our minds whether proposed amendments are being thought outside the scope of the Bill or outside the Long Title. You will know that there is a significant distinction between those two things. If some of these amendments, either as applied to Clause 1 or, perhaps, as reapplied to later clauses, were considered out of order because they were not accompanied by a proposed amendment to the Long Title, that is something that hon. Members should know in advance. It would be quite wrong if, as we moved through the Bill, an amendment on a clause that would otherwise be in order because it was within the scope of the Bill were simply not selected, without warning, because it was not accompanied by a proposal to amend the Long Title.
  On the question whether particular amendments are within the scope of the Bill, I emphasise that the Bill is, by its Long Title, one to make provision not only for, but "in connection with" the election of Members to the European Assembly. There is no question of any decision of the European Communities in any case limiting the Bill, but there is no decision anywhere saying that we are all to have the same arrangements the first time around.
  I know that the Treasury contains a provision requesting member States to formulate common arrangements, but nobody suggests that that part of the Treaty is being brought into operation for the moment. It is therefore for each State to formulate its own arrangements.
  There are certain proposals on the Amendment Paper about pay and expenses which to me have no particular attraction on their merits. That is not
  760
  the point. The question is whether the Committee will go through this Bill and never be allowed to turn its attention to these considerations. It has been obvious in our proceedings over the last few weeks that these matters have a great attraction for certain hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, even if they do not have that attraction for me. It is right that these matters should therefore be canvassed.
  It is obvious that when a new legislature is erected in the European Community, with elected Members and all the appurtenances that accompany it, there will be a substantial increase in the charge upon public funds in the United Kingdom, partly for the pay and expenses and partly arising from consequential matters. It is right, therefore, that the House of Commons in Committee of the whole House, which is by tradition the Committee of Supply of the House, should give its consideration to one matter, namely, the burden that will fall on British funds as a result of this change, if it be made.
  If you can give your opinion on the general considerations which governed your selection of amendments, Mr. Murton—and that is obviously a matter within the prerogative of the Chair, and it would be wrong to dispute your decision in a particular case—it will enable the Committee to discharge its function in the fullest possible manner and without any sense of grievance that we have been taken unawares and have lost opportunities of proposing amendments that the Committee would like to discuss.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I join those right hon. and hon. Members who have made submissions thus far, and I am glad, Mr. Murton, that you are listening to our submissions before replying.
  The heading of the selection describes it as "provisional", and therefore the intention is that it takes account of the convenience and the wish of the House. Therefore, I want to put some points to you. The last time this Bill came before the House there were, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, points of order which lasted for 15 hours. I do not anticipate that happening today, but it illustrates the point that the rejection by the Chair of amendments that most hon. Members consider

  761
  relevant causes difficulties. On the previous occasion there was subsequently a half-day debate on that matter.
  The Treaty that has been referred to is not in reality a treaty. The so-called decision was a decision requiring ratification, and, as I understand it, that ratification has not yet been made by the House. We are only now beginning that process. Therefore, we are bound neither by any treaty nor by the Long Title of the Bill, and therefore we may be concerned with the rights of the House in respect of these elections.
  The Bill says that its provisions are
  "in connection with the election of representatives".
  Can we entirely disregard the subsequent duties and obligations of those representatives? If we cannot debate those duties and obligations to the people of this country under this Bill, how and when can we discuss them? I submit therefore, that some of these amendments fall within the scope of the Bill, for discussion under the Bill.
  Amendment No. 6 has been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). It relates to the duties of the Assembly, which Article 137 of the Treaty of Rome described as "advisory" and "supervisory". There has been some controversy in the House about this. Therefore, the inability to debate that amendment would have a bearing upon the scope and activity of any persons to elected.
  But it is to Amendment No. 8 in particular that I draw your attention, Mr. Murton. As yet, we do not know whether this is a matter of non-selection or whether it is outside the scope of the Bill. I cannot see how it could possibly be outside the scope of the Bill, because it seeks to insert words to the effect that subsequent to elections this House shall name persons in a resolution. It goes on to say that any such resolution shall have effect for a particular time.
  The amendment is proposed for two reasons. It is the long-standing tradition and right of this House to act as an electoral court. Indeed, pages 33 and 34 and part of page 35 of "Erskine May" deal with that very subject. The paragraph headings are
  "Proceedings of the House in matters of election".
  762
  followed by
  "Proceedings of House upon determination of election trials"
  and "Extensive corrupt practices". As hon. Members will know, the House no longer exercises—although it did at one time—its judicial functions in respect of elections. It has, through the Representation of the People Act 1949, set up judicial machinery for that very purpose. But, as I understand it, the Representation of the People Act 1949 would not operate in regard to this Bill, and unless the House maintained its fundamental right of acting as an electoral court, any dispute which arose from time to time in respect of elections would not be within the competence of this House. I submit, therefore, that in regard to the resolution of any difficulty this is a very valid point, and that the amendment is worthy of selection. Mr. Murton, if you regard it as in order.
  The second part of Amendment No. 8 refers to such a resolution
  "having effect until the end of the fourth week of the Parliament following that in which the resolution was passed".
  That means that if the mandate of this House in respect of the EEC were in any way changed as a result of a General Election, that resolution might or might not be renewed. I think that is a proper protection for this House to have in that respect.
  Amendment No. 9 relates to the same subject but has more to do with by-elections. As we all know, it is the custom of a Member of the House to move a writ for a by-election to fill a casual vacancy. That. I hope, would remain in respect of this Bill, but if we are not allowed to discuss it or to put it in, I submit that that would no longer be the case. There are a number of matters for probing as well, because I understand that writs are issued by the Clerk of Crown in Chancery and that results are made known to him, and there may be some difficulties about the body to which such returns of returning officers were made, and as to the authority for the holding of elections by returning officers.
  I submit to you, therefore, Mr. Murton, that provided the three amendments, Nos. 6, 8 and 9, which I have described, are in order—you will no doubt in due

  763
  course say whether they are or not—there is a very proper reason for their being debated. If they cannot be debated, I think there would be questions not only here but in the country as to the reasons for it.
  It may be, as the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) said, that some people would think that these matters should be discussed elsewhere in the Bill and that the amendments should be placed in another part of it, but I submit that that would be an argument for their withdrawal or rejection upon such deliberation, and not necessarily a matter relating to selection, for if the Government or any other person were agreed that it should be taken up again at another time, that would be a matter for the House.
  I hope that you will bear these matters in mind, Mr. Murton, in considering whether you will stay with this word "provisional", for some hon. Members feel that there is indeed some scope for reconsideration of this matter.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Max Madden: I do not think that anyone challenges the constitutional or, indeed, the public expenditure importance of the measure, and I think that the House owes it to the public at large to ensure that all mints of view are represented in discussing this measure in Committee.
  I am sure that I shall not be challenged if I say that this measure does not enjoy universal support either inside or outside the House. Indeed, I am sure you will know, Mr. Murton, that less than half the Parliamentary Labour Party saw fit to support the measure in the Lobbies. There is great anxiety, suspicion and reservation about the Bill, both inside and outside the House, and it is most important that amendments should allow these matters to be discussed as fully as possible.
  I understand that the provisional selection that has been made enables only two of the 14 amendments tabled on this clause to be selected. They were significant and substantive amendments, submitted by a number of right hon. and hon. Members of this House. I draw attention particularly to Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13, which deal with
  764
  the pay and conditions of elected Members of the Assembly. This is an aspect on which there is widespread general public concern and anxiety, and the House should be given an opportunity of discussing these matters in Committee.
  In making this argument I call in aid the paragraph in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum dealing with the financial effects of the Bill and the effects on public service manpower, where it says that
  "The cost of elections held under the Bill is likely to be at least £10 million every five years. This is mainly attributable to payments for election staff and to postal charges for the free delivery of candidates' election addresses. It will be necessary for local returning officers to recruit temporary staff for duties at polling stations and for the count, but the effect of the Bill on permanent public service manpower will be minimal."
  I am sure that there will be many reservations, both inside and outside the House, concerning the basis of that statement, but it indicates that the act of election is central to the measure and is therefore extremely important in considering it.
  I ask for your reconsideration, Mr. Murton, of the non-selection of the amendments that I have indicated, as I believe that many hon. Members are very concerned about the basis on which Members are to be elected to the European Assembly. They are very anxious to discuss the substantive matters that are described in these amendments.
  Mr. Richard Body: May I be very brief, Mr. Murton, and refer you to two amendments which have not been selected, and also say why this causes some concern in all parts of the House? The amendments are Nos. 22 and 23. Although they are in the name of only one hon. Gentleman —the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—I think that they command a very great deal of support.
  I submit to you, Mr. Murton, that it must be a question for this House, and this House as a whole, who should be the representatives to be elected and how they are to be selected. This House should not have its hands fettered in any way in wishing to extend representation to others for whom we are constitutionally responsible in the European Assembly.

  765
  I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman, in drafting the amendments, has included the Falkland Islands. I recognise that that may well be out of order, because the Falkland Islands are outside Europe, and the Treaty of Rome specifies very clearly that no one who is a non-European is eligible to be associated with the European Economic Community—
  Mr. Powell: No. There are the Turks.
  Mr. Body: Any country from outside Europe is excluded from membership of the Community. Gibraltar will be very much affected by the forthcoming developments of the European Economic Community. This is obvious if the Community is to be enlarged so that there are 12 members instead of nine, as at present.
  Therefore, for so long as we have any responsibility for those who live in Gibraltar we should, on this occasion at least, have the opportunity of debating and deciding whether any representative from Gibraltar should be allowed to attend the Assembly. I am not arguing that it should be so, but I submit that the House of Commons ought not have its powers fettered in deciding whether Gibraltar should be represented here.
  It may be that you, Mr. Murton, see some procedural defect in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Perry Barr. The hon. Gentleman may be at fault in including the Falkland Islands. However, in replying to these points of order perhaps you will indicate whether the amendment would be valid if the Falkland Islands were excluded and whether, if that were done, you would allow an amendment similar to Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 in order that the Committee could have the opportunity of deciding whether Gibraltar should be represented at the European Assembly.
  Mr. Roger Moate: I should like to add my request for assistance and guidance on the selection of amendments. In doing so, I express my thanks to you, Mr. Murton, for your courtesy and patience in listening to the points that have been made, but I am sure that you will understand the importance of these matters.
  I wish to refer particularly to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, which have not been selected. They relate to the pro-
  766
  posed levels of remuneration, fees and expenses of representatives in the European Assembly. I understand that on a number of occasions in the past the Government have given assurances that it would be opportune, during the proceedings on the Bill, to discuss this subject.
  The non-selection of Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 has come as something of a surprise. Otherwise, one could have gathered the material to indicate the assurances that had been given. However, I distinctly remember asking the Prime Minister about the level of pay of Members of the Assembly, and he said that it would be a matter suitable for discussion during the progress of the legislation. Indeed, I think that the Leader of the House gave similar assurances.
  It may be that the non-selection of these amendments indicates not that this subject is out of order but that it may be more appropriate for a later stage. Your guidance on that point, Mr. Murton, would be helpful.
  The importance of this matter can be in no doubt. I think that the Committee and the general public would be surprised if we were prevented from discussing this subject. I am not criticising your selection, Mr. Murton. However, I think that there would be serious criticism if this vital and sensitive matter were not to be discussed. After all, it concerns the relationship between the House of Commons and the future European Assembly. I think that this is a matter of the utmost importance both to the House of Commons and to the European Assembly.
  In considering why Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 had not been selected it occurred to me that it might be argued that the Bill relates only to the election of representatives, not to the terms and conditions under which they will serve. If that were the argument one could turn to the later clauses of the Bill and point to the provision for disqualification of members of the European Assembly. If certain conditions can cause a member to be disqualified, surely it is proper to lay down other terms and conditions for his service.
  I also wondered whether it would be argued that these financial matters had been covered by the Money Resolution and were therefore no longer germane

  767
  to the argument on the Bill. The Money Resolution provides only for expenses connected with the election procedure. It in no way touches on the costs thereafter incurred by these elected representatives. It seemed to me that this matter of great importance both to the Committee and the country should be discussed in depth here.
  I do not feel that I have made a partisan point in what I have said. I suspect that those who are enthusiastic and those who are not so enthusiastic supporters of the legislation would like to feel that the subject was aired fully in this Chamber during the debates on the Bill.
  For that reason, Mr. Murton, and knowing your concern for protecting the rights of Back Benchers and the public outside, I hope that you will give us some guidance on the reasons for the non-selection of these amendments, indicate how these matters might be raised at some other stage or, bearing in mind that this is a provisional selection, reconsider the selection that you have already made.
  The Chairman: This might be an appropriate moment for me to reply to the submissions that have been made by right hon. and hon. Members on the selection of amendments.
  Before saying anything further, I should like to comment on what was said by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I was deeply interested in his very full exposition of the point that he made. My judgment in this matter is simpler than his regarding the scope of the Bill. "Scope" is really the operative word on which I have to make a judgment.
  I gave the greatest possible consideration to these matters before the Committee met this afternoon, because I appreciate the views that have been expressed to me by right hon. and hon. Members.
  I have been unable to select the amendments to Clause 1 that have been mentioned this afternoon because they are not in order. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I give my reasons. I can do that by taking, first, Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 and consequential amendments to Clause 2 which were tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are, in my view, quite outside the scope of the Bill,
  768
  the sole purpose of which is to deal with the election of United Kingdom representatives. In view of the arguments that have been advanced, I stress the words "United Kingdom".
  Mr. Jay: On a point of order, Mr. Murton—
  The Chairman: I am dealing with a point of order. However, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to interpolate another point of order before I go any further, I am quite willing to accept it.
  Mr. Jay: The point simply is that the Long Title says not "Make provision for and in connection with the election of representatives of the United Kingdom to the Assembly of the European Communities", but,
  "Make provision for and in connection with the election of representatives to the Assembly of the European Communities."
  The Chairman: With respect to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), I am resting my argument not on the Long Title but on the question of scope.
  I shall continue with the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment No. 8. In my view, that is out of order because, as drafted, it puts a specific and mandatory obligation upon the House of Commons to follow a certain course. The House is the master of its own procedure. Therefore, such a provision is not appropriate to legislation.
  Amendment No. 9, tabled by the right hon. Gentleman, deals with the machinery by which the electoral process is started, and that is not within the scope of Clause 1. I suggest, however, that amendments of this purport could quite properly be tabled to Clause 7 and Schedule 1, paragraph 3. I hope that on this occasion the Chair has been helpful.
  5.45 p.m.
  Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 —again in the name of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North—are all, in my view, as drafted, outside the scope of the Bill, which deals with the manner in which representatives are elected but does not cover their behaviour once they have been elected. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, however, seek to impose a disqualification, and something along their lines might be offered as amendments to Clause

  769
  9 and Schedule 1(5). Again, I hope that that will please the Committee.
  Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are additionally out of order—this is a very important point—in that they contain taxing provisions, which cannot be made without a Ways and Means Resolution, as has been pointed out in the course of argument.
  Although it was not mentioned, for Amendment No. 14, in the name of the right hon. Member for Down, South, to be fully effective, it would need further consequential amendments in those sections of the Bill which deal with by-elections.
  That leaves the Chair with Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 6, mentioned by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, and certain starred amendments. In these cases I have exercised my power under Standing Order No. 33 not to select. As the Committee knows, this power is entirely discretionary and I exercise it as best I can.
  Mr. Eric S. Heller: I have tried to follow your remarks closely, Mr. Murton, but I am not clear on one thing. You said that Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 were outside the scope of the Bill, but later you said that they could possibly be amendments to Clause 9. I am not clear about that. If they are outside the scope of the Bill, surely they cannot be raised in any way. Perhaps you meant that they were outside the scope of this clause. If that is what you meant, I am happy to accept your word, but I am not clear just exactly what you meant.
  The Chairman: Since the amendments contain something of a disqualification element it would be possible for something along the lines that I suggested to be included.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Murton, for your ruling. As I understand it, Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which I mentioned particularly, might in an appropriate form be appended to later stages of the Bill. May I raise with you again the question of Amendment No. 8, which you have ruled must be out of order because it appears to require the House to pass a resolution
  770
  and the House is master of its own procedure? I should like to make two points. First, the House is not required to pass a resolution which enables it to do this thing by resolution. Secondly, there are many precedents for Acts of Parliament doing just this. At the moment I can remember only one. That is the one that sets up the parliamentary Boundary Commission. You will remember, Mr. Murton, what a time we had with regard to that provision in that Act when the present Prime Minister was Home Secretary and the Commission reported that the Government would not move the appropriate resolution in this House.
  I have not had time to check my recollection, but I believe that there were even proceedings in the courts to try to force the Home Secretary to present the resolution in the House. But certainly the parliamentary Boundary Commission legislation and possibly the Local Government Boundary Commission statute adopted this procedure of putting the matter to a resolution of the House.
  There has been argument whether the House must pass such a resolution. I know that there are other precedents and I know that they have been raised on this issue and that Mr. Speaker has either ruled or been invited to rule that in certain cases the House must pass certain resolutions.
  Therefore, there can be nothing out of order in an Act of Parliament providing for something to be done and provisions to be made by a resolution even when the statute appears to be mandatory. But in this case my submission is that the amendment is not mandatory; it is merely permissive. Of course, the House need not nominate any Members to the European Assembly. For some time it did not do so in relation to the Government party, because they did not want to be so nominated. Although others were, it would have been perfectly competent for this House not to nominate anyone. That being so, and while there obviously remains in you the proper discretion of the Chair simply not to select an amendment, I submit that on ample precedents and on a proper interpretation of the wording of the amendment, the amendment cannot be out of order.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  The Chairman: May I deal with this point, because it is rather complicated? If one were to follow the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) along that line, and if that amendment were to be agreed to, it would basically have the effect of making the Bill say that "the representatives…shall be named in a resolution of the House". That would be imposing a duty on the House. That is why I stand by the argument that the House must be the master of its own procedure.
  Mr. Bryan Gould: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I am sure that the Committee is grateful to you for your ruling and guidance on these matters. May I suggest one or two points for your consideration concerning the basic principles that have guided you in making your ruling—the principles concerning the scope of the Bill?
  The Long Title uses the phrase: "The election of representatives" but I take it —I am sure most hon. Members would—that that phrase describes a possible procedure by which representatives eventually end up in the European Assembly. Obviously it must be a procedure which includes the casting votes and the choice of representatives by voters.
  The Bill must necessarily, and indeed does, go far wider than simply dealing with the process of election. It begins, in Clause 7, as a means by which an election is to be initiated and includes the drawing up of constituencies, the appointment of returning officers and so on.
  As the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) pointed out, it goes so far as to deal with the position of representatives who once elected and actually in office, decide to vacate their seats because they wish to qualify under the terms of the Bill. The scope of the Bill covers the whole procedure and process which is inadequately covered by the term "election".
  If one looks at the amendments at issue at present one notes that Amendment No. 9 would clearly not be out of order; it would be within the terms of the Bill, just as Clause 7 is within the terms of the Bill. The amendment deals with the process by which an election is to be initiated.
  772
  If one looks at Amendment No. 8 one sees that it is a provision for further steps in the process by which a representative finds himself elected to the Assembly. It is a step—not in itself an election, but part of the general procedures covered by the Bill.
  On the points concerning the inappropriateness of this type of provision and equally, part of the precedent cited by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) it certainly would be within the competence of the House to instruct itself or to accept a duty for itself, even if in a subsequent Session a new Parliament might wish to take a different approach and pass new legislation vitiating that course. I find it difficult to understand why a provision of this sort might be out of order. There may be little point in it, except as a declaration by this Parliament that this is the method by which it envisages Members being elected to the European Assembly, but I find it difficult to understand why it should be out of order and I would be grateful for guidance on that point.
  I understand the point about Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, but on Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 I would be grateful for guidance concerning ways in which this might be made in order. I take it that you, Mr. Murton, accept the point that I make concerning the scope of the Bill, extending to the circumstances that exist once the election is completed, and governing the situation, in the context of qualification and disqualification, in conditions under which elected representatives continue to hold office.
  Provided that these amendments are framed within the terms of disqualification, surely they are in order and are within the scope of Clause 9 and, therefore, within the scope of the Bill.
  The Chairman: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that what he has said is broadly correct.
  Mr. Jay: I understood that your view, Mr. Murton, was that this was a Bill concerned with the election of representatives and not their subsequent holding of office. Therefore, we can discuss the conditions under which they are elected but not the conditions under which they subsequently hold office. Surely your view

  773
  is not borne out by Clause 9 of the Bill, which is headed, in the margin.
  "Disqualification for office of representative to Assembly."
  The opening words of that clause say:
  "—(I) Subject to subsection (3) below, and without prejudice to Article 6(1) (incompatibility of office of representative with certain offices in or connected with Community institutions)".
  It then goes on to lay down, in effect, that if a Member of the Assembly becomes, for instance, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, he is disqualified from continuing in office. Surely that is not a condition of his election. He may become a Lord of Appeal three years after the election. Therefore, it is a condition of his continuing to hold office. Surely it cannot be argued that the amendment is out of order because it provides that Members should hold office only subject to certain conditions.
  6.0 p.m.
  The Chairman: The argument here surely is based on the question of disqualification. The words I used, advisedly, were related to the question of behaviour. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman finds the way in which I put it is not wide enough. In fact I would have thought that disqualification was an essential part of the whole procedure in question on the clause being discussed.
  Mr. Jay: As I understood it, Mr. Murton, the amendment was ruled out of order partly on the ground that it says "and shall hold office" and that the debate should be on the condition of election rather than the condition of holding office. But Clause 9 lays down conditions for the continued holding of office.
  The Chairman: I think that my argument stands on the ground that it was in the wrong place in the Bill. If the right hon. Member studies what I have said I think he will find that his mind will be more at rest.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: I refer to Amendment No. 8, Mr. Murton, on which you have given a ruling about the resolution being out of order because the House is the master of its own procedure. I apologise for the fact that I cannot remember
  774
  it, but there is undoubtedly a statute which imposes on the House of Commons the duty of passing a resolution in certain circumstances.
  You are ruling Amendment No. 8 out of order not because it is outside the scope of the Bill but because it infringes the power of the House of Commons to regulate its own procedure. Therefore, I invite you to consider it on the same principle as you would consider the contents of a Government Bill imposing on the House the duty to pass a resolution in certain circumstances. Would such a Bill be disallowed on the ground that it infringed the power of the House of Commons to control its own procedure? The amendment leaves us entirely masters of our own procedure, and merely says that we must do something. I submit that you would not rule out of order a Bill that was brought forward by the Government imposing by statute the duty of passing a resolution. If that is so, the amendment is within the scope of the Bill and surely, therefore, must be in order.
  The Chairman: I have the greatest admiration for the advocacy of the hon. and learned Member; in fact, I am lost in admiration. However, I am not lost so far that I cannot point out politely that he is dealing with a hypothetical situation.
  Mr. Powell: May I, with great respect, thank you, Mr. Murton, for your careful and lengthy ruling, which is evidently of great importance and should be sufficient, in itself, to disabuse anyone of the notion that in raising points of order we are in any way wasting the time of the House or deferring proceedings, since our right or otherwise to move and debate amendments to a Bill of this sort is of the highest importance.
  So important does this matter of scope appear to be that I wonder whether I may confirm that I have understood your ruling, Mr. Murton, that amendments to the Bill are not constrained or limited by the contents of the decision of 20th September 1976 and that the scope of the Bill is derivable from the Bill itself as presented. We are not in a position where we find ourselves confronted with the Bill of 1972 and other instruments limiting our power to decide under what conditions the elections shall be held. I hope that I have apprehended the point

  775
  correctly, because it is of great importance.
  The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman asked me two questions. In both cases the answer is "Yes".
  Mr. John Ellis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. You addressed yourself to a series of amendments, Nos. 2, 3 and 6. Amendment No. 6 deals with the phrase "advisory and supervisory". That matter is of the greatest importance in regard to the powers in the Bill affecting future actions by the Assembly. In respect of those amendments, you based your decision on Standing Order No. 33 and more or less left the matter there.
  I have examined the matter and see that the Standing Order states that Mr. Speaker
  "may, if he think fit, call upon any Member who has given notice of an amendment, new clause or new schedule to give such explanation of the object thereof as may enable him to form a judgment upon it".
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) may like to take advantage of the opportunity to press his point a little further in establishing that the Bill relates to a body which, in the words of the amendment, is "advisory and supervisory". It is of the utmost importance that we should not let these matters get out of hand.
  Standing Order No. 33(5) states:
  "The powers conferred on Mr. Speaker by this order shall not be exercised by the Deputy Speaker save during the consideration of the business of supply."
  I do not think that this is the business of Supply, although I stand to be corrected.
  The Chairman: I must correct the hon. Gentleman, and I shall do so in the nicest possible way. Standing Order 33(3) says:
  "Mr. Speaker, or in a committee of the whole House, the Chairman of Ways and Means or either Deputy Chairman, may, if he think fit, call upon any Member to give such explanation".
  Therefore, I have that power. I have formed my judgment on this amendment under the terms of Standing Order No. 33 as a non-selection. I think the hon. Gentleman understands that I have the right to do this. But I can throw out one crumb of comfort—namely, that the matter could be discussed on the Ques-
  776
  tion, "That the clause stand part of the Bill".
  Mr. John Ellis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I was not trying to be impertinent when I referred to this matter. I was seeking clarification. I did not wish to lead you into trouble with Mr. Speaker.
  The Chairman: I am greatly comforted by that. Everybody is being very kind.
  Mr. John Ellis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. Without wishing to trespass further on your kindness, may I say that on certain amendments you appear to be willing to spread your wings for the better understanding of hon. Members, and particularly on Amendment No. 6. One flies to Standing Order No. 33, but it appears to limit the extent to which we may try to understand the situation. Will you give further consideration to this matter?
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman asks me to spread my wings. I am no angel, but I must stand by what I said earlier. I have formed my judgment on Standing Order No. 33, but no doubt there will be an opportunity afforded to the hon. Gentleman in the discussion on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill".
  Mr. David Stoddart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Standing Order No. 33 gives you discretion, which you have exercised. You have now gone a little further and said that the matters may be discussed when we debate the clause. However, what you are doing is taking away from hon. Members the opportunity to vote on that narrow point, and you are then advising them that, if they do not wish to pass the amendments, they should vote against the clause. That appears to be using a great hammer to crack a small nut. Since you have so far exercised your discretion against calling those amendments, will you give the matter more thought so that you may change your mind and exercise your discretion in favour of the amendments?
  The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is very persuasive, but the inherent power of selection is laid down by Standing Order No. 33. That is the reason why

  777
  it exists. I stand by what I have already said.
  Mr. Moate: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I appreciate the help and guidance you are giving the Committee, and I apologise for returning to Amendment No. 13, on which you have commented. In reply to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould), you used the phrase "broadly so". I believe you were answering the point by saying that Amendment No. 13, possibly in another form, could be reintroduced when we come to Clause 9.
  The Chairman: No. I think that the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I held out that hope in regard to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
  Mr. Moate: I shall be grateful, Mr. Murton, for your further clarification on this important point. It is not a minor matter but is of the utmost importance because it affects the level of remuneration of Members of the European Assembly. I am concerned with the good word and reputation of the Government. I find it hard to believe that they would have drawn the scope of the Bill so narrowly that their promises for this to be allowed to be considered could not be carried out. I hope that there will be some opportunity to raise this matter in a different form on another clause.
  I should like to ask about your ruling on Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 and to inquire whether Amendment No. 13 involves a form of taxation. That amendment says:
  "and shall hold office subject to the condition that any payments, fees, emoluments, salaries, allowances, or expenses paid to them in respect of their office shall be paid by them into the Consolidated Fund".
  It then goes on to deal with a resolution determining those payments in respect of their office as representatives. A form of taxation presumably involves the person concerned making a net payment over. That would apply only if the salaries paid to Members of the European Assembly were higher than those paid to Members of this House. That has not yet been stated categorically by the Government.
  The Chairman: That is a possibility which has to be taken into account. It
  778
  is not for the Chair to say. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that these are taxing provisions. It means taking money out of the pockets of the taxpayer, and that could not be done without a Ways and Means Resolution. As regards any comment about the Government's view, that is not a matter for me.
  Mr. Moate: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. I seek further clarification. Why is it that, expressed in a different form, it is not possible for the House to add to the reasons provided for in Clause 9? Surely it is possible to add to Clause 9. This is a matter of such fundamental importance to the course of debate that I hope you will give some helpful guidance on this matter.
  The Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman could think of other reasons for disqualification, it would be in order for him to table the appropriate amendments. We shall see how we get on.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. This is an important matter about the scope of the Bill. I followed your ruling with great care, and I thought I was clear on them, but I am now bemused by the rulings that you gave to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and to the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis). Is it not the case that the scope of the Bill—in terms of amendments and the extent and range of debate—derives from the Long Title of the Bill in the usual way.
  The Long Title of the Bill to which the House has given a Second Reading by a substantial majority says
  "To make provision for and in connection with the election of representatives to the Assembly of the European Communities."
  That can mean only that the Bill is concerned with the method and conduct of elections and that the amendments and possible alterations to the Bill must be within those confines. The House has given a Second Reading to the Bill on those principles, and the amendments must be concerned with the method and conduct of elections only.
  In that context, Mr. Murton, will you assist in clarifying whether Amendment No. 8—which seems to contemplate an election or other procedure authorized

  779
  by the legislation—will be outside the scope of the Bill if it seeks to extend the Bill to include a procedure other than an election, because that would be inconsistent with the Long Title? Would not any attempt to move amendments designed to alter or limit the powers of the Assembly be outside the powers of the Bill? It seems that the scope of the Bill is limited to the election of representatives. The Bill could not take within its scope a power to seek to limit the powers and activities of the Assembly to which Members had been elected as representatives, neither could it limit what the representatives did when they got there.
  Turning to Amendment No. 1, Mr. Murton, which you have selected, can you clarify—
  The Chairman: Order. Quite apart from my ruling on Amendment No. 8—which, in addition to the flaw which I indicated, is not entirely clear in its intention—I might be able to assist, although I do not want to break into the flow of the hon. Member's thoughts, if I draw attention to the problem about the Long Title.
  The Long Title gives an indication of what is in the Bill. The scope of the Bill is to be discovered by looking at its contents—its clauses and schedules. It is against the scope of the Bill that I have to judge whether amendments are in order. I must underline this point about scope, because "scope" is the operative word and it is the thread that we have been following for some considerable time.
  Mr. Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Surely, as no clause or schedule of the Bill deals with the powers of the Assembly, it cannot be within the scope of the Bill to restrict the powers of the Assembly now or in the future. I take guidance from the fact that the Chair has selected Amendment No. 1, which in no way seems to seek to affect the powers of the Assembly but to affect only the duration of the legislation if it is passed. It is extremely narrow and it was selected on that basis. There is no attempt in it to widen the scope of the Bill. The powers of the Assembly cannot be adjusted by the use of amendments to this piece of legislation.
  Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. May I echo what has been expressed by other hon. Members in thanking you for your patience and guidance, particularly your helpful guidance on Amendments Nos. 10 to 13? I understood your initial ruling that those amendments were outside the scope of the Bill because the Bill deals with the manner in which representatives are to be elected rather than with their subsequent behaviour. However, following the discussions that we have had on that aspect, I wonder whether you could advise me whether you would accept a manuscript amendment to Clause 1, making it a requirement of nomination for candidates to declare any financial interest that they hold. Would that be a proper manuscript amendment to Clause 1 or would it be more appropriate as an amendment to Clause 9, having regard to the comments that you made earlier?
  The Chairman: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) is extremely persuasive, but I could not accept such an amendment to Clause 1. As for the hon. Gentleman's further suggestion, I shall be prepared to look at it when the time is right.
  Mr. Body: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. With every respect, may I be allowed to revert to the amendments put down by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)? I appreciate all that you have said about the scope of the Bill, and, of course, in the way that Clause 1 is phrased, it appears to limit representation to people of the United Kingdom. However, in giving your ruling in respect of Amendment No. 8, Mr. Murton, you reminded the House that we are the masters of our own procedure and that we are, above all, governed by the Long Title of the Bill. I suggest that there is nothing in the Long Title to limit representation to the United Kingdom.
  I know that you have refreshed your memory several times about the Long Title, but it says that it merely makes "provision for and in connection with the election of representatives to the Assembly of the European Communities."
  I suggest that the only grounds upon which amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Perry Barr could be ruled out would be by your exercising

  781
  your discretion under Standing Order No. 33. If you did that, Mr. Murton, nobody here would have the temerity to question your ruling, except, perhaps, to express a regret that you did not allow the hon. Member for Perry Barr to advance his reasons for urging that Gibraltar should have its representative in the Assembly of the European Communities.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) reverted to the matter of the Long Title. As I said, the Long Title is an indication of what is in the Bill, but it is the scope of the Bill that matters. In fact, the Bill specifically refers to the United Kingdom, full stop. There is no provision that I can possibly see or any way in which the Bill could be extended beyond the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Mikardo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. As you know I am not an expert on the procedure of the House by a long chalk and I am a rather simple fellow. But it seems that if one took literally to its sensible and logical conclusion what you have just said, it would never be possible to add anything to a Bill. If we are saying that what is in the Bill constitutes the scope of the Bill and anything that is not within the scope of the Bill is out of order, surely ipso facto any addition to the Bill must be out of order. Where am I wrong in that?
  The Chairman: I am sure that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), who is in no way simple in the ways of the procedure of the House of Commons, knows full well that what I said, although perhaps rather clumsily, was that all amendments that are within the scope of the Bill are considered. However, I chose, under the terms of Standing Order No. 33, not to select these particular amendments, and I stand on the decision that I have made.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. May I seek your guidance in connection with the point that you have just made for the benefit of the Committee? The impression of all hon. Members will be that a long time has been spent on the questions put in legitimate points of order in connection with various amendments that
  782
  were not selected by you, using your discretion under Standing Order No. 33.
  The Committee is also grateful for your detailed and substantial explanations, which appear entirely reasonable and logical. I hope that I am not embarrassing you by saying these things. On the basis of the selection that you have made and your reiteration of the scope of the Bill—the crucial part of the explanation—you appear to have been reasonable, and many hon. Members regard your decisions as perfectly acceptable.
  Without wishing to provoke any hon. Members, my question is whether, after nearly two hours on various points, many of which have been related, even though dealing with different amendments, it is unreasonable for me to suggest that the time that has already elapsed for these matters and your considered response and careful judgment is sufficient. I suggest with some hesitation that the time spent on your responses to queries has been substantial and to the satisfaction of hon. Members. I am satisfied that your explanation of the scope of the Bill results in your selection of amendments flowing logically from that explanation. I may be wrong in drawing that conclusion. Other hon. Members may wish to pursue the matter, but the difficulty facing the Committee is that if they do so they are questioning the essential selection process.
  The Chairman: I am fully sensible of the fact that the hands of the clock are moving round, but this is a matter for the Committee to decide. I am the servant of the Committee and will endeavour to do my best, within the rules of order, to be as helpful as I can and—I say this with some trepidation—for as long as the Committee desires.
  Before calling the next hon. Member, I think I should remind the Committee that we have spent a fairly considerable time on the question of my selections. I am, of course, prepared to continue on this subject, but hon. Members should bear in mind the time left at our disposal.
  Mr. Stoddart: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I thank you for your patience. We all appreciate that the hands of the clock are going round, and we want to get on to the first interesting amendment. However, I should like to clarify your ruling in relation to Amendment No. 13.

  783
  I understood you to say that the amendment was not in order because it was a taxing measure and required a Ways and Means Resolution.
  Am I to understand that, if the Government brought forward such an amendment on a Ways and Means Resolution, that would be in order? If so, could one of the Ministers, who, I know, want to be helpful in this matter, intervene now, bearing in mind the importance of the amendment and the importance that the country will attach to it, to indicate whether the Government will bring forward such an amendment at some stage?
  6.30 p.m.
  The Chairman: That is a hypothetical question. It is not for me to say what the Government might or might not do. One has always to bear in mind that it is conceivable that any such amendment could be outside the scope of the Bill, but that is not for the Chair to say when the matter remains entirely hypothetical.
  Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I am sure that the House is grateful for the way you have handled this complicated matter. I am sure that people will read Hansard carefully tomorrow. May I ask you to bear in mind what has happened should we tonight reach the stage of discussing whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill?
  May I put to you some matters that you may not be able to answer at once but which remain outstanding? The first is the question of scope. Today is the first time that I have realised that the scope of a Bill is not inherent in the Long Title. You have surprised many of us by saying that the scope is what is in the Bill. Some hon. Members have, on occasions, had amendments ruled out of order as not being within the scope of the Long Title. That has not happened today, but you have ruled amendments out of order for not being within the scope of the Bill.
  Hon. Members have been put in a novel and unusual position which I do not understand. If a Bill is drawn tightly in its wording, amendments are extremely limited whatever the length of the Long Title; and if the Long Title is extremely narrow and the Bill extremely wide, hon. Members are similarly inconvenienced.
  784
  Perhaps you may wish to reflect on this matter and give a further ruling later.
  You have also ruled that Amendment No. 8 is not selected or is out of order. In my original point of order, I pointed out that the non-selection of this amendment would mean that the House of Commons could not discuss its continued function as a court in respect of disputed election results, and nothing that I have heard from you has contravened that claim. You have said that you will not select Amendment No. 8, and that it is out of order for the Committee to discuss the continued function of the House as an electoral court. I do not believe that this is so. As to Amendment No. 13—
  The Chairman: Order. Before we go any further, I must point out that I did not say what the hon. Gentleman claims I said. It is a question of discussing the whole electoral procedure.
  Mr. Spearing: My final point concerns Amendment No. 13, Mr. Murton. Can you rule on whether the taxation ruling that you gave is related to the Consolidated Fund? Would it apply if payments had to be made to the Fees Office?
  The Chairman: Taxes are paid into the Consolidated Fund. Does that meet the hon. Gentleman's point?
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I do not want to waste time. I am one of those who want the Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible, but I put a point to you earlier and I believe that you were contemplating it when another hon. Member caught your eye with another point. Is it the case that any question of seeking to adjust the powers of the Assembly or to constrain any changes in powers in future is outside the scope of the Bill?
  You enlightened me, Mr. Murton, on the fact that the scope of the Bill was not entirely determined by the Long Title but was reflected in the content of the clauses as well. It seems that, as the Bill stands, there is not a single clause which in any way affects the powers of the Assembly. That is an important point and one which is likely to recur during the debate. I hope that you will rule on any question of our seeking to control how those powers might be changed in the future and what those powers are now. Is it not the case that

  785
  that may be an appropriate matter for the Committee to consider but that it is wholly outside the Bill? The Bill is concerned with the regulation of the elections which the House has agreed will take place.
  The Chairman: As far as I can see, the answer is "Yes". I suggest that we move on to the first amendment.

Clause 1

  ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES TO THE EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY
  Mr. Jay: I beg to move an amendment which is, happily, in order and which you have selected, Mr. Murton—Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 7, at beginning insert
  During the period ending with the date on which any alteration in the powers of the Assembly of the European Communities (in this Act referred to as "the Assembly") takes effect by virtue of any treaty as defined in section 1 of the European Communities Act 1972'.
  The Chairman: With this we may discuss Amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 8, leave out from 'Assembly' to 'shall' in line 9.
  Mr. Jay: I wish to point out that I put my name to the amendment a few days ago but it has been removed because, I understand, only six names appear on the Notice Paper.
  The Chairman: No discourtesy was intended. There was no printer's error or anything like that.
  Mr. Jay: I recognise that. I merely wished to make it clear that my name was put to the amendment.
  The meaning of the amendment is that the terms of this measure would cease to have effect at any time when there was an increase in the powers of the EEC Assembly, however that increase came about. What we are seeking to achieve is to carry out undertakings which, I understand, have been given by both Front Benches that they do not favour any increase in the powers of the Assembly. If there were to be an increase, additional legislation—not just an Order in Council—would be required to continue the validity of this measure. I hope I am right in saying that that is the view of the Government and the Con-
  786
  servative Front Bench. I am not sure whether that is the view of the Liberal Party. At the moment, Liberal Members are showing their great enthusiasm for the Bill by totally absenting themselves from the Chamber.
  The view of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is quite clear. He wrote a letter on this point to the Secretary of the Labour Party on September 30th, stating:
  "It is our policy to continue to uphold the rights of national Governments and Parliaments. We do not envisage any significant Increase in the powers of the European Parliament. Should any such increase in powers be contemplated it would need the unanimous consent of the Nine Member States and of the Parliaments. The United Kingdom should make it clear that in our case any change in the powers of the Assembly would require an Act of Parliament and not simply be introduced by an affirmative order under the European Communities Act."
  That is unusually plain and unambiguous compared with some political statements and political manifestos that some of us remember. It is perfectly clear that what we are doing here is to carry out and embody in the Bill the pronouncement that the Prime Minister made.
  I see the Minister of State, Home Office on the Front Bench. He reaffirmed this objective of ensuring that any increase in the powers of the Assembly would be carried out by legislation as recently as the Second Reading debate on the Bill a week ago. I shall quote what my hon. Friend said to show him that all we are trying to do is assist him and support him by putting into the Bill the undertaking which he gave us on Second Reading.
  My hon. Friend said:
  "The powers of the Assembly are laid down by the Treaty, and in order to alter the Treaty the unanimous consent of all nine countries is required. Before the powers of the European Assembly could be added to, the British Government would have to give their assent and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his letter to the NEC of the Labour Party, it is intended that any extension of the powers of the European Assembly would be effected here by means of an Act of Parliament…I hope that the right hon. Gentleman who leads for the Opposition on this occasion will affirm his party's commitment to a similar procedure."
  I thought that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. White-law) so affirmed, but he can make that absolutely plain tonight.

  787
  The Minister of State made a further statement in his Second Reading speech. He was speaking about the proposal for the regional list system of election. I do not intend to discuss that now, but the Minister mentioned it as being relevant to this question of powers. He said:
  "The advantage that we see for the regional list system derives from the fact that the Assembly is a consultative and advisory body which has neither legislative nor executive powers. In our view, such a body would be better served by an electoral system reflecting the division of view within our country rather than one with a greater chance of a clear result, which is far more important for a legislative or executive body. "—[Official Report, 24th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 1776, 1771.]
  It is of interest for the Committee to note, for the purpose of later discussions, that the Minister of State justified the regional list system, which apparently the Government favour, clearly and explicitly on the grounds that the Assembly was to be purely advisory and consultative. The implication of that is that if the Assembly ceased to be purely advisory and consultative, and if it had increased powers, the whole case for that system of election would fall to the ground. I hope that the Committee will note that.
  My hon. Friend will, I hope, accept the amendment, or at any rate the substance of it, because it appears to be entirely in tune with what he was saying. I hope he will not argue that, although he entirely agrees with our objectives and he reaffirms the undertakings that there will be no increase in powers without legislation, nevertheless, in spite of all that, he does not want to put this into the Bill. Speaking for myself, I have so often heard Ministers say that they intend to do something in the best of good faith but are not prepared to put it into the Bill that, while I do not say that my hon. Friend arouses my suspicions, I have some suspicions of that attitude on the part of a government.
  Someone said the other day that the Prime Minister might be Moses but he is not Methuselah. He will not be the Prime Minister for ever. Neither is my hon. Friend Methuselah. These verbal undertakings, recorded in Hansard, or letters to the Labour Party written by Ministers, even the Prime Minister, are rarely a sufficient safeguard.
  If the amendment, or the substance of it, is accepted, it will mean that, should
  788
  the Assembly increase its powers, it will be necessary to have a further Bill amending this measure so that representatives from the United Kingdom can go on serving in the Assembly. That would precisely carry out the undertaking that full, new legislation would be necessary. I do not think it is enough to be told that there can be no change in the powers of the Assembly without a unanimous decision by the Council of Ministers and approval by this House.
  6.45 p.m.
  Most hon. Members know what occurred last summer. There was an increase in the powers of the Assembly last summer over the budget. It was accepted by the Council of Ministers and it was formally, we are told, accepted by this House of Commons. All that happened was that there appeared on the Order Paper one day—probably a Friday, although I am not sure—the words "Definitions of Treaties Order, Number something or other", and this was approved at some late hour without very many hon. Members knowing what was happening. I am sure we all agree that it would be profoundly unsatisfactory if anything like that occurred again.
  I hope, therefore, that we can achieve unanimous agreement in Committee that there must not be increases in the powers of the Assembly without full legislation and full discussion in the House. That is the only safeguard that matters. If the Government are sincere and genuine, as I am sure they are, they will agree to have this safeguard clearly and plainly written into the Bill.
  Mr. Powell: My hon. Friends and I were pleased when we found that the amendment which we have tabled and which, by the good fortune of proposing the insertion of words at the beginning of the first line of the Bill, would be the first amendment—should you select it, Mr. Murton—to be considered by the Committee, had found favour more widely. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) for giving it the stamp of his approval, as well as his signature, by moving it.
  This is an amendment which, if one follows the tenor of previous debates upon the subject, we had every reason to suppose conformed with the intentions and wishes of both sides of the House

  789
  of Commons, certainly with those of the Front and Back Benches on the Government side and quite certainly with the intentions of the official Opposition.
  The area of agreement is considerable and is continually widening. We all knew that a further extension of the powers of the Assembly required action by Parliament because that was provided for in Section 1 of the 1972 Act. This assurance was carried further, as the right hon. Member for Battersea, North has reminded the Committee, by the Prime Minister, who made it clear—among other ways in his famous letter to the NEC—that although, technically, it would be possible for a resolution under Section 1 of the 1972 Act to do the job, this Government at any rate had no intention of any appreciable extension of the powers of the Assembly being brought about otherwise than by substantive legislation.
  That certainly means that, although it might be a short Bill, it would have to go through all its stages in both Houses, and we would have as full an opportunity as our procedure gives us of examining the implications of that proposed extension of powers in the light of what we were doing in the Bill, in the light of the fact that this was an Assembly to which, under the Bill, we had consented to send directly-elected representatives.
  The area of agreement was broadened further a week ago today on Second Reading. After the Minister of State, Home Office had repeatedly and most clearly re-enunciated the undertaking of the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw)—and I think there were many in the House who were glad to hear it—not merely accepted that undertaking on behalf of the Opposition but also expressed the opinion that
  "it may have to be written into the Bill to make sure that it is so."—[Official Report, 24th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 1781.]
  I think that I am probably interpreting the right hon. Gentleman's intentions in the use of those words correctly when I say that he was not casting doubt on the good faith in this respect of the Government, or, still less, upon the good faith of his own colleagues, but was saying that, in a matter as important as this
  790
  and so directly relevant to the decision to participate in a directly-elected Assembly which we are taking in the Bill, the promise ought to be entrenched legislatively—entrenched on the statute book. Indeed, the whole of what the right hon. Gentleman said at Column 1781 is well worth reading.
  So I believe that on the proposition that, if we are to pass the Bill, it should be distinctly upon the basis of the existing powers of the Assembly and also upon the basis that those powers cannot be appreciably increased without further legislative action by the House of Commons, we are again on what is basically agreed ground.
  In July 1976 the Prime Minister used the expression, in relation to a directly-elected Assembly, that it
  "will be elected on the powers which it has already."—[Official Report, 14th July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 661.]
  Those words were re-echoed a year later by the Home Secretary, who said:
  "I should emphasise that these direct elections are being conducted on the basis of the present limited powers of the European Assembly."—[Official Report, 6th July 1977; Vol. 934, c. 1251.]
  Of course, there is a logical sense in which that is bound to be true. It could be treated as a truism to say that, if we set up a directly elected Assembly now, we set it up on the basis of the powers as they are now, But that would be an empty truism, and I am certain that it was not as an empty truism that it was pronounced by the Prime Minister or by the Home Secretary. The Prime Minister was not just putting us off by logical fiddling so that we would think we were getting an assurance when, if we read the small print, we should find no assurance at all. Both he and the Home Secretary were saying, in effect, "We would not be asking the House to consent—certainly not as things are at the moment—to direct elections except on the assumption of the current powers of that Assembly, which we are proposing to assist in turning into a directly elected Assembly".
  So the thought that the one is conditional upon the other has been implicit in this matter, not just in the last week or few months but from the first time that the Government came forward with any positive proposals to the House

  791
  for direct elections. In fact, it is in line with the thinking of the Prime Minister and the Government as expressed in the letter to the NEC of the Labour Party. Over and over again in that statement of the policy of the Government, the Prime Minister stressed that he regarded the Assembly as an Assembly in which nations were represented and that he would not be a party to anything which would diminish the powers of national Parliaments and national Governments.
  No one should be under the impression that the Prime Minister was using those expressions lightheartedly or that he was using them in order to steer between the Scylla and Charybdis of a difficult legislative path. They undoubtedly came from his heart, for one cannot read—and they are good reading —the speeches which at an earlier stage he used to make without knowing that he understands perfectly well that, once we have a directly elected Assembly, unless the powers of that Assembly are rigorously limited so that they cannot conflict with the rights and powers of national Parliaments and national Governments, there is no question but that the House of Commons will have lost effective control.
  I am not going to trouble the Committee by quotations—although they are very good—from some of the Prime Minister's speeches, particularly at Cardiff, in which he vividly illustrated what would be the position of Members of the House and of our constituents if a directly elected Assembly were mandated to give assent to executive or legislative acts of the EEC: we should have effectively lost control over the policies and legislation of our own country.
  Therefore, it is entirely in line with the thinking of the Government, and with the careful, solemn and repeated expressions which have been used during the last 18 months by members of the Government, that we should see this legislative step as conditional upon the present limitation of the powers of the Assembly. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North quoted the Minister of State, Home Office, who, in moving the Second Reading, rested the case for the Bill upon the fact that it was only "a consultative and advisory body"—words which will still be true, Mr. Murton, whether or not we are permitted by your decision actually to write them into the clause.
  792
  But the Minister of State went further still and made a remarkable statement which, I think, expresses how closely in the Government's mind the case, and, indeed, the justification, for the Bill, if it has one, is conditional upon the limitation of the powers of the Assembly to substantially what they are at present. He said:
  "I am advancing the argument that this Bill stands or falls on its merits as a measure to elect people directly to the Assembly, with the powers of that Assembly as they are today."—[Official Report, 24th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 1768.]
  In other words, the Bill stands or falls on the proposition that the Assembly to which representatives are to be directly elected is an Assembly with the powers as they are today. What need have we of witnesses, since the Minister himself said that the case for the Bill would fall if the powers of the Assembly were appreciably increased?
  7.0 p.m.
  The effect of this amendment is precisely to turn into legislative form the words of the Minister of State, Home Office; for the amendment secures—I hope that it secures, but at least it intends to do so, and I know that the Government will not quibble about that—that if those powers are extended the House—and, therefore, the country—will have the opportunity to consider de novo the case for direct elections and to validate a directly elected Assembly again, if it thinks fit, in those new circumstances, because the case for what we are doing now with this Bill will by them have fallen.
  Therefore, I not only hope that the intention of the amendment will be accepted by the Government, who are in fact committed to it by their own words and by the general spirit of their policy, but I look to it being supported by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border and his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench. The right hon. Gentleman was not, I believe, present in the Chamber a few minutes ago when his hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) pointed out that this was perhaps the only way in which we could get into the Bill, given the scope of the Bill, that legislative enactment of the pledge which the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border wanted. So

  793
  I think that we should count upon having for this amendment not the support of a minority but the support of the greater part of both sides of the House and the official support of both Front Benches.
  There is only one thing that I want to add. There are a number of hon. Members—mainly, though not exclusively, sitting on the Opposition side—who take an entirely different view from that of the Prime Minister, the Government and most of us about what they intend and wish for the future of the European Economic Community and our place in it. From the beginning of this controversy I have always said publicly inside and outside the House, that I cast no imputations upon the honour of any hon. Member who conscientiously believes it right to advocate that this nation should become a province of a new structure which is to grow out of the EEC. I know, indeed, that that is the view—and I have honoured him for expressing it clearly—of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I have said that repeatedly.
  In the debate on Second Reading last Thursday, we heard hon. Members on both sides of the House of Commons, but certainly on the Opposition side, say "Yes, I do desire a federal outcome. That is what I want, and that is what I think it is all about." It is entirely right that those hon. Members should have said that, and they are entirely entitled—as entitled as any hon. Member—to put their point of view. What is clear is that it is a view which does not command the general support of Her Majesty's Opposition, which is in conflict with the rejection by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border of what we call loosely "federalism", knowing perfectly well what we are talking about. It is, of course, also in conflict with the view of the future of the EEC which the Prime Minister has enunciated on behalf of the Government, and it is in conflict with the view of the majority, undoubtedly and visibly, of hon. Members who sit on the Government side of the House of Commons.
  What I am saying—and in a way this amendment is the first of many opportunities for us to do what I believe is our duty—is that we have to stop pretending that there is no fundamental cleavage
  794
  of intention here as to what the European Economic Community is going to be for this country. We have to come clean. If we do, we shall find, I believe, that on both sides of the House of Commons there is a large, perhaps overwhelming, majority who desire the rights of our Government and of this Parliament to be preserved and entrenched against the federal development of the European Economic Community. The case for or against can be debated, of course—it is the essence of the debate—but the division has to be recognised.
  In this, the first amendment which we consider upon this Bill, we are making clear that, at any rate if there is to be any alteration of purpose, if there is to be any alteration of function, of the European Assembly, we wish whatever authority we are giving in the Bill to be recalled so that on behalf of the people of this country we can take our decision afresh and without prejudice; for I believe that that is the intention not only of a majority of this House of Commons—and a large majority—but of a vast majority of the people whom we represent.
  I hope that the Committee will agree either to the amendment as it stands or to some undertaking from the Government that they will embody the intention and purpose of it in amendments which they themselves will bring forward.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity of making a short contribution to this important debate. There are some aspects of the amendment which I find difficult, for reasons which I shall give, but the difficulty which I entertain does not in any way derive from the object of the amendment as it has been defined and as I understand it to be. I apprehend that the object of this amendment is to retain a parliamentary control at Westminster of any extension, or attempted extension, of the powers of the European Parliament. If and in so far as that is the object, it is a laudable object and one which I support.
  If the attainment of that object were to depend upon the enactment of this provision and could be obtained solely by the carrying of this amendment, I would certainly be very sympathetically inclined to it, in spite of the practical difficulties to which it would give rise,

  795
  but, in my view, that is not really the case. The control by this Parliament of any extension of the powers of the European Parliament or Assembly does not depend upon or, indeed, strictly require, the introduction of any such provision as this and the practical difficulties which it entails.
  There would, of course, be practical difficulties. It would mean that suddenly, on a date impossible to prognosticate, to anticipate or to regulate, the British representation at the Assembly would come abruptly to a halt. Not only would the tenure of the directly elected British representatives be at an end but there would be no statutory provision for their replacement or for any other British representation. There is no amendment tabled to the Bill, so far as I can see, to seek to provide for such representation in those circumstances.
  Mr. Powell: The right hon. and learned Member has been very fair in recognising the object of this amendment. Perhaps I may put it to him that it by no means follows from the amendment that there would be an abrupt termination of our representation in the European Assembly, because, of course, we would not take the legislative steps which would be necessary as part of the unanimous agreement of the Community States unless we were also ready to continue, by a renewal of the mandate given by the Bill, the existence of the directly elected Assembly. So whatever may be the other difficulties, I do not think that it is a practical point that we would suddenly be faced with our representatives in the Assembly disappearing, as it were, through a trap door. It would be known months, perhaps years, beforehand what the date would be, because it would be by an Act of Parliament that the powers of the Assembly would have been increased.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said at the outset and for the explanation which he sought to give. The fact remains, however, that the amendment, if carried, would have a certain effect. We see from the correlation of the words of the amendment to the Bill that
  "During the period ending with the date on which any alteration in the powers of the Assembly…takes effect "—
  Mr. Powell: "Takes effect".
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: "Takes effect", yes. The date on which it takes effect is not a date within the control of this Parliament, or certainly not exclusively of this Parliament. It is a date dependent upon the ratification, according to their own constitutional procedures, of at least eight other member States, or more if the Community is enlarged. It is a date dependent upon the completion of the ratification procedures by the last of those member States. So it is not a date which is in the control of this Parliament. Hence my use of the word "regulate". It is not a date within the power of this Parliament to foresee in advance. Hence my use of the term "anticipate or prognosticate". It may not be a difficulty which it is impossible to get over, but it is a practical difficulty which has to be weighed in the balance if one is looking at comparative methods of achieving what I have stated to be a desirable object.
  That is why I want to come to the question of what is the position of this Parliament as a matter of constitutional law—and, indeed, international law—in regard to any effort to extend the powers of the European Parliament or Assembly.
  The extension of the powers of that Assembly is not a matter within the jurisdiction or control of the Assembly itself, nor even a matter for its own initiative. Of course, it would be otherwise—if I may respectfully say so, this is why some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen perhaps do not always see this matter in its full constitutional clarity—if the Community were based on the British concept of the omnicompetence of Parliament, of the sovereignty of Parliament. If that were so, of course a directly elected Parliament would be able ipso facto to extend its powers, and in those circumstances it would be under some temptation to do so.
  However, that is not the position. The Community is an institutionalised structure based on the separation between the four institutions of the Community—the Council of Ministers, the Commission, the Assembly and the European Court of Justice—of powers and functions defined and allotted in a written constitution, a concept not very familiar to most of us here but, of course, very familiar to the majority of the other member States.
  The powers and functions of the Assembly are defined, as the Committee

  797
  well knows, in Article 137 of the Treaty which states:
  "The Assembly, which shall consist of representatives of the people of the States brought together in the Community, shall exercise the advisory and supervisory powers"—
  and then there follow these words—
  "which are conferred upon it by this Treaty."
  I emphasise those final words because that is the definition and delimitation of the powers of the Assembly.
  Though the European Parliament can and does properly, and, I believe, does usefully, within these powers, influence and seek to improve legislation, it is not a legislative body such as is this Parliament, for example. It is not a legislative body, and it cannot become a legislative body within the framework of its powers as they are defined in the Treaty.
  7.15 p.m.
  Not only is the European Parliament not the controller of its own powers. It is not even the arbiter of its powers. It is the European Court of Justice which, under Article 164 of the Treaty,
  "shall ensure that in the interpretation and application of this Treaty the law is observed."
  So, the powers of the Assembly being defined and limited by the express provisions of the Treaty and the interpretation and enforcement of those powers and functions being a matter not for itself but for the European Court of Justice, what is the position in respect of enlarging the powers of a directly elected Parliament? It can be done only by an amendment of the Treaty, the procedure for which is prescribed in Article 236, the terms of which, I am sure, are well known to the Committee but which repay every moment of detailed study which can be given to them.
  From Article 236 two propositions are abundantly clear. First, a directly elected Parliament would not of itself have any right to initiate the proposal for the necessary amendment for the extension of its powers. This initiative is expressly confined by the terms of the Treaty to
  "The Government of any Member State or the Commission."
  They submit any proposals to the Council of Ministers. So there is no power of amendment in a directly elected Parlia-
  798
  ment, no right of initiative of any amendment.
  The second proposition that clearly emerges is this. Any amendment to increase the powers of the directly elected European Parliament could enter into force only
  "after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."
  That last position—the requirement of ratification in accordance with the constitutional requirements of the member States—would, in the case of most of the member States, immediately involve the control of any increase or attempted increase in the powers of the European Parliament by the national parliament since the written constitutions of those member States ordinarily and properly make such ratification expressly a matter for the national parliament.
  Here in the United Kingdom, by way of contrast, the matter is complicated by our historic concept of treaty making as a matter of Crown prerogative, from which it might appear that Parliament has no, or no sufficient and proper, control, apart from the opportunity for discussion under the so-called Ponsonby rule. Fortunately, as the Committee may think and certainly as the proponents of the amendment will think, this does not represent the reality of the position. In the United Kingdom, unlike in some other countries, such as the United States, treaties are not what lawyers call self-executing. That is, they do not automatically become the law of the country which signs the treaty.
  In the words of the leading textbook on the subject, Lord McNair's "Law of Treaties",
  "No treaty requiring municipal action"
  in case there is any isolated right hon. or hon. Member who is not aware of it, let me state that "municipal" is the language of international lawyers for "national" and has nothing to do with dustmen, sewerage or any of those things—
  "to give effect to it can receive that effect without the co-operation of Parliament, either in the form of a Statute or in some other way."
  As with the Treaty of Accession, any amendment to the EEC Treaty would require national action within the terms

  799
  of Lord McNair's definition, since the British courts will not apply directly the provisions of a treaty in this country in derogation of private rights. They will apply only such provisions as are incorporated and given effect to in our own national statute law. An amendment of the EEC treaty to give increased powers to a directly elected European Parliament would, therefore, come within the first of the three classes of treaty defined by Lord McNair at page 83 of his classic work where, in his words,
  "sanction is required for their municipal"—
  national—
  "execution and application and must be given in the form of a statute"
  Lord McNair uses the words
  "in the form of a statute"
  It must be considered whether, under contemporary parliamentary practice, and particularly the European Communities Act 1972, it would be possible to minimise parliamentary control, to get away from the full effects of parliamentary control, by substituting approval by Order in Council under Section 1 and thereby not giving a proper opportunity for full parliamentary consideration and statutory decision. In my view, Section 1(3) of the 1972 Act could not properly be read as the procedure required in Lord McNair' definition for an amendment under Article 236 of the Treaty designed to extend the powers of the European Parliament. I would not say—
  Mr. Marten rose—
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: I was about to say—and this may reinforce my hon. Friend's desire to put the point—that such a proposition is not unarguable, because my pretty long forensic experience leads me to believe that very few propositions are unarguable, but it is not a proposition which I would expect to succeed when one considers what Section 1(3) deals with. My hon. Friend will know from his legal experience, the canon of construction that one should look at the subject matter in interpreting the words of any legal instrument.
  Mr. Marten: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his compliment to my legal training, most of which went out of the window many years ago. I
  800
  have been following his argument with great interest. What worries me is the fact that things can be twisted in the Community. May I give him an example and ask him to comment on it? The decision of 20th September 1976 was that the elections should be held on a single date and that all countries should hold them on that date. I have here what is called the European Parliament Report, published by the Community, which states:
  "The date of the elections was of such political and psychological importance to the Community, Mr. Simonet argued"—
  and he is, after all, President of the Council of Ministers—
  "that if one or more countries held back then he others should go ahead."
  In other words, despite the decision to hold the elections on one day, the President of the Council of Ministers argues exactly the opposite. The quotation continues:
  "This view caused some controversy. Lawyers Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Con/UK) and Mario Scelba (CD/It) were sceptical. John Prescott (Soc/UK) called it an astounding doctrine. He has…implied that the Treaty obligation now can be considered changed on political grounds, rather than remain a legal obligation'."
  It is this weaving, twisting and turning by people in the Community which makes the amendment of the Bill necessary.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: Was it not lucky that I was present when Mr. Simonet made that proposition, so that I could point out to him that under the Treaty these are matters of interpretation for the European Court of Justice? I said that if there was doubt on the proposition it would not be resolved by pronouncements made either by him as President of the Council or even by a humble Back Bencher like myself. It was a matter for the court.
  In my view, therefore, the position is reasonably clear without any further enactment. The position is this, and I put it as a proposition of law deriving from a written constitution. There can be no extension of powers of a directly-elected Parliament without amendment of the Treaty and there can be no such amendment without ratification involving parliamentary approval; that is, approval by the national Parliaments of every one of the nine member States.
  Mr. Spearing rose—
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: I suppose that we are not in any time difficulties, so I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for making the position clear, but he is back where he started. Our procedure is completely subterranean, and therefore what he puts forward as a strong safeguard is in fact very little safeguard at all.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. In addition to all his other talents and qualities, he must be a mind reader, because the next sentence in my notes reads: "But the position of the United Kingdom is less clear than that of member States with a written constitution". It is less clear precisely for the reason I gave a few minutes ago. It follows, therefore, that it may be desirable for us in this country and this Parliament to enact an appropriate statutory provision to safeguard the position and for what statutes call the avoidance of doubt.
  However, that can be done without a provision involving the practical difficulties which I apprehend may follow from my right hon. Friend's amendment. Lord McNair points the way. In addition to the three cases which he has defined, and one of which, in my view, clearly applies in the context of the present circumstances where parliamentary sanction of a treaty is required ratione materiae, by reason of the inherent character of the treaty, Lord McNair says that
  "there are some cases in which the Crown expressly stipulates for parliamentary sanction as a condition of the coming into force of the treaty".
  He gives precedent for that.
  Such statutory provision can be made either by a simple amendment to this Bill—not the amendment we are discussing, because I think that a simpler amendment could be devised which would give direct effect to Lord McNair's proposition—assuming it to be within the Long Title, or, perhaps better, in a short, simple and separate Bill. That would be feasible, both constitutionally and practically. Such a Bill would be easy to draft and, if I do not mistake the general sentiment of the Committee, it would be assured a speedy and unopposed passage.
  802
  In my view, if any action at all is required to safeguard the desirable object of maintaining our parliamentary control of any extension of the powers of die European Parliament, and if there is any reasonable or appreciable doubt, there should be appropriate action for the dissolution or dispersal of doubt. If there be any doubt, action should be taken to remove it, and it could be sought along the lines that I have adumbrated. I respectfully suggest—because those of us who table amendments have no obstinate pride of draftsmanship—the alternative methods which I have suggested would achieve this desirable object perhaps better, if I may modestly say so, than the passage of the amendment in its present terms.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. John Ellis: I do not wish to be offensive to the right hon. and learned Member, because he is an eminent lawyer, but he was left in some bother with interventions. He was saying that we had no need to fear from this amendment. He said that we do not need the amendment and that the EEC was a different matter altogether. He said that the politicians were not involved, but that this was a matter for the courts. He said that he had been there when he stopped them doing this dastardly thing. That is the trouble; we fear that he may not be there.
  Because I am a politician, I came to the House with the votes of the people behind me. We make the law and we are answerable for it. Whatever one says about the EEC, it has politicians who operate policy. Some of the politicians have their political dreams and ideologies and wish to see them put into effect.
  I suppose that the system that we have in this country might not suit everyone, but it has stood us over many years. It is a system of which I am proud. I think we are all proud of it, especially when we see how it works. Perhaps other countries with less stable systems need constitutions or something that is above themselves. That is something about which we know nothing. Our system is understood by our people when they return us here. We come here and wield power on the basis of their faith and vote in returning us, and we accept that they can refuse us.

  803
  We take a momentous step when we say that we shall hold elections to send other representatives of ourselves to Europe. The two Front Benches have been sensitive to what has been happening. I am sure that if we were to have a vote on the Common Market tomorrow there would be a different result.
  The two Front Benches are now saying that of course the European Parliament is consultative and advisory. They say that they will not let it be anything else. They say that Parliament is supreme, that we shall take the decisions and that our destiny will be here.
  We have already seen powers go. We have seen a Minister on behalf of the House make certain dispensations about the agriculture and pig industries. We have already seen him taken to court and told "This is not on. It is illegal and you must set it aside." Some people would argue that some of the power that we had has already gone. We do not wish to see that position further eroded.
  I noticed a peculiar thing when we were debating the principle of the matter. The spokesman on the Government Front Bench gave the pledge that the Assembly would have no more power and that this Parliament would be sovereign and supreme. I can speak only about those hon. Members on the Government side who are in favour of the Common Market. They muttered harshly at that.
  It is honourable to say that our future lies in Europe and that we must join. It is honourable to say that if the Italians have something to give they will bring it to the Community and that we shall bring something else, so that we can work as an entity. Such people have the courage and faith to say that we shall have one Parliament and shall be Europeans, rather than a collection of individuals. They believe that the Assembly is only the start. There are hon. Members, whom I salute, who may say just that. All honour to them. That is their dream and conviction, and that is why many of us who take the contrary view are so wary of proceeding further along these lines.
  In many ways I wonder what we are at, if this body is to be advisory and is to have only these limited powers. The House sets up many bodies to which it gives instructions. It gives them advisory
  804
  and supervisory powers. Why do we go to the extent of sending these gentlemen to Europe on an elected basis, as proposed by the Bill and this amendment? Why do we bother?
  Mr. Dykes: Is that not the crucial difference? Any power that the European Parliament might have—and it has not got any at the moment—would flow only from the supreme decision of the Council of Ministers, whose own power flows from the national Parliaments.
  Mr. Ellis: That is what I am saying. The hon. Member says that as a true European. Perhaps he hopes that the Council of Ministers will be as answerable to the Assembly as our Ministers are to this House. That is a logical follow-through of the argument. If people vote to choose their political representatives in this House, representatives who will create and control policies on their behalf, they will believe that they are sending representatives to do the same in Europe. Yet we are told that that is not to be the case. What, then, is the point of going, if the Members who go will have no influence over events?
  It will be all so easy at first. The Assembly will say that it wants only a debating forum, or that it wants Ministers to come before it and explain matters. I regard politics as an honourable profession. We believe in certain principles and we are sent to Parliament to exercise our responsibilites here.
  Which self-respecting politician who has any guts will go to Europe and be satisfied merely with being listened to? He will be accosted, as we all are, by some of his more vociferous constituents. They will demand to know why he took a certain action and what right he had to do so. When I am challenged in that way, I reply that I stood on a public platform and declared what I believed in and told the people: "Choose me if you will". I suppose that we have all been opinionated at times. That is why I went into politics. I disagreed with something that was done in our village and I was told "If you want to do it differently, you must stand for election." That was a long time ago, when I was a young man, and I decided to stand and have a go. I ended up in the House of Commons.

  805
  The representatives in Europe will say that they were sent by their electorates, and at first their demands will be modest. They will seek only to advise. But when their advice is not taken the demands will grow and they will protest that they came with people's views, and how dare those in authority not listen to them? There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who believe that that is the proper approach, and that it is an evolution that will come. The Front Benches sincerely meant what they said, but if they believe that Parliament will be supreme, that the supervisory and advisory nature of the Assembly is to remain, there can be no objection to that fact being written into the Bill in that precise form.
  What we are deciding here will determine what happens tomorrow or next year. The representatives who go to the Assembly will be answerable as we are. Our duty is to see the position clearly. We must put in all the checks and balances that we think appropriate. If we have the support of the two Front Benches in this amendment in saying that the representatives who go to Europe must not extend their power, only the federalists—those who wish to set up an independent Parliament and to pursue their dream—will vote against the amendment. We who believe that this country has a destiny of a different order, and who believe that that would be a wrong step, are mirroring the fears of a growing number of people outside the House.
  This amendment would require an act of this House before further powers could be assumed, and on that basis I do not believe that the supporters of the two main parties here tonight can do other than vote for the amendment. I hope that we shall have a vote. We who support the amendment will win if both the Front Benches, who have made their positions clear, do not cavil but follow the logic of their speeches on Second Reading.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Nick Budgen: It is right that the first amendment should deal with the whole relationship of the House of Commons with the proposed European Assembly,
  806
  or the European Parliament as it can become. The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) rightly said that this amendment is at least a first step in defining the relationship between this Parliament and the European Assembly. The conciliatory way in which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke in supporting the amendment might perhaps have given the impression that he thought that it was almost sufficient to contain the insatiable desire for power and influence by the European Assembly and those who sit in it. I say only that the amendment is the necessary beginning.
  I believe that we have to fear not only the law-making powers of the Assembly but its influence. For in recommending to the House the expressions often enunciated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), as expressed at column 1781 of the Second Reading debate, the right hon. Member for Down, South perhaps gave the impression that he agreed with my right hon. Friend in the view that mere legalisating powers were the beginning and the end of the influence that the European Assembly might have upon this House of Commons.
  The true position is perhaps more clearly stated by the right hon. Member for Down, South in his speech at column 1790, where he expressed with his usual vigour and force his belief that the real fear of the increasing influence of the European Assembly will come from its budgetary powers. After I read that passage, I recollected some of the speeches that had been made by my right hon. and hon. Friends in recent debates in the European Assembly upon the budget there. Before looking at those reports, I had in mind the classic conflict which is still being fought out within the Conservative Party.
  Of course, the Conservative Party has never been a party wholly of those who agree with Whig free-trade principles, nor of those who wholly agree with the views of the Tory paternalists. But it would be fair to say that at present there is a slight balance in favour of the former. Therefore, I would have expected to see a tendency among those who attended the European Assembly as Tory Party representatives—because that is

  807
  what they are at present—to prefer market forces to State intervention; a tendency to be sceptical about the efficacy of regional policies; a tendancy, perhaps, to be rather sceptical about some of the social policies to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) referred, putting it so well, when she talked about the need to have wealth-creating jobs and not wealth-consuming jobs.
  I should have thought that most of the Tory Party was now at least aware of the argument for reducing public expenditure, and at least aware of the need to reduce public expenditure with a view to becoming once again the party of sound money.
  With views of that sort in mind, I thought that it would be of interest to see the kinds of views which were expressed by my colleagues when they were speaking about the budget in the European Assembly. I first refer to a report of the proceedings of that Parliament, as The Times calls it, on 13th September 1977. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Shaw) said that
  "the immediate reaction of MPs to the draft budget was unfavourable. The Council of Ministers had produced a draft budget which in no way could be regarded as comprehensive policy document. It was a patched-up job which did not measure up to the hopes and needs of the Community."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) said that
  "the Council of Ministers had used the surgeon's knife to produce virtual sterility in the regional fund. Where money could be more effectively spent by the Community than by Member states it was not additional expenditure but more effective deployment of funds."
  That is an interesting distinction. My hon. Friend added that
  "to cut the Commission's proposals for the regional fund was madness."
  Although I said that I would refer only to those members of the European Assembly who are Conservatives, I hope that if I refer to Mr. Roy Jenkins I shall be considered to be referring at least to an honorary Conservative.
  Mr. Mikardo: That is fair enough.
  Mr. Budgen: Mr. Roy Jenkins, President of the Commission, said that
  "the cuts made by the Council were not in his view responsible. They paid little or no regard to any sense of strategy or priorities, to
  808
  the future development of Europe or to making the budget not just an accountancy exercise but an expression of policy."
  The report quotes Mr. Roy Jenkins as having said later:
  "With the advent of direct elections this might he, and he hoped it would be, the last budget that this Parliament as constituted would handle. He hoped by its handling it would signal to its directly elected successor the importance of parliamentary influence over budgetary decisions and the crucial political choices which they posed."
  Then, on 25th October, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster made a most passionate speech in support of more money for the alleviation of youth unemployment. But perhaps the most important speech on that day was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), who said that
  "the CAP was often criticised because it represented too large a proportion of the overall budget. This was because everything else was too small. This was due in part to the reluctance of the Council to increase other sectors. The Council was too timorous, and to a certain extent the Commission was at fault for failing to put forward sufficient draft regulations expanding the scope of other sections of the budget. If they were developed the agricultural policy would be seen in its correct perspective."
  I assert, therefore, that the real danger to the sovereignty of this Parliament comes from the extension of the Community budget. These proposals, which will perhaps to a limited extent regulate the law-making capacity of the Assembly, are a small step in the right direction. But the real risk is that by the extension of the budget the community will progress towards a federal and supervisory rôle which threatens most of all the sovereignty of this Parliament.
  Mr. David Crouch: I confess that I sometimes fear for the future of democracy in this country when I hear how frightened some of my colleagues and Government members are of the very process and the spirit of democracy.
  We listened to the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) make a very powerful speech. It was a speech from the puritanical seventeenth century. "By God", he said, "we must stick to the straight and narrow. We must not deviate for one moment from this House. It is all we know. We dare not even look outside the Chamber for fear of seeing something that we did not create here

  809
  in this great puritanical centre of democracy."
  What he was saying, in other words, was "We dare not export democracy. We must keep democracy here." All sovereignty, it would seem, is the sole prerogative of the House of Commons. The hon. Member spoke glowingly of his position as a Member of Parliament in this country and of how much he liked it. We all do. We treasure the association that we have with our constituents. I agree with him about that. We can speak up for them in this House, as the hon. Gentleman says, and, of course we treasure that. But what is so wrong with another type of MP, a member of an Assembly in Europe, properly elected and democratically representing British people in a European Assembly?
  Of course, if we are against the whole idea of partaking in Europe, we must be completely against the Bill. If we want to dissociate ourselves from a community of nations, the European Economic Community—if we want to break away from that, I respect the honesty of any Member who sticks to his guns and says "I shall fight to the last to get away from this Treaty and our commitment under it."
  Mr. John Ellis: My point is that we are being led by the Government Front Bench to believe that we are not setting up another European parliamentary system such as our own. If that were the argument, we could understand it. What concerns me is the dishonesty of the position that some people are getting themselves into. The pure federalist—which I take it the hon. Gentleman is—wants to take us into European democracy and convert everyone else to it. All right, but that is not what is said here, and that is what we fear is being done.
  Mr. Crouch: I shall come in a moment to the question whether we are federalist. It is certainly my long-term aim to see a federal Europe, but there is a time for everything, and I have always said so. What the Treaty established was a community of nations. It created a legislative centre—a management centre, one might call it—in Brussels. But that was not all. The Community was not intended just for Ministers, just for bureaucrats and officials, or just as a place where international business men could work
  810
  together with a group of Ministers from six nations. It was much more than that. It was created as a Community of people.
  When the Treaty of Rome was written and first signed by the Six, 20 years ago, it took account of the place of people in Parliament, but not just in the Parliaments of their own national countries. The idea was that the people of the member States should themselves have a say and be involved in what was to happen in the Europe of the future. It was not another North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It was not another International Monetary Fund. It was not even a United Nations, meeting twice a year in General Assembly for a talk. It was much more than a management centre and meeting of Ministers. In the first place, it was the full involvement of politicians. It has taken 20 years for it to grow from that and to involve the people—starting next year, I pray—in an extension of democracy in Europe.
  8.0 p.m.
  The EEC is nothing if it does not grow as a democratic group of nations. If it grows as a group of nations, as a vast European corporate State, it will not be my ideal. I want the Assembly to have a chance to grow so that the people in the member States can feel that their voices will be heard in the place where important decisions are made.
  I know that some Members passionately believe that we must not allow a shred of power to flow from this Parliament. There are those who feel that the power must come back to this Parliament and to the other eight Parliaments if people in those countries have a similar feeling. I appreciate that feeling, but I earnestly believe that we shall succeed in this group of nations and make real history only if we accept that it can be done only with the help of the people, and not with politicians alone. People must participate, and the European Assembly must begin to grow. For 20 years it has not been the type of Assembly that we all admire and want to take part in.
  Mr. Dykes: Indeed, and in a world where the essential problem facing all parliamentarians of good will, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) suggested, is the effective control over both the individual Executives of the

  811
  national Parliaments and the collective Executive represented by the Council of Ministers, with all the complicated decision-making that will face the Community in the future, is not the task to build the supplementary collective democracy of the European Assembly over and above the individual national democracies in the individual member Parliaments?
  Mr. Crouch: I agree. That is what I meant when I spoke of the institution of the Assembly being written into the Treaty of Rome. That was where the creators of the idea of a European Economic Community had their vision. They did not leave democracy out. It would have been easy to produce a treaty that gave us another NATO in economic and social terms. It would have been easy to create a European United Nations. Instead, the great architects of 20 years ago conceived the idea of a rebirth of democracy in Europe. I submit that that must now be given a chance to develop.
  There is no Member here whom I would not describe as a good democrat. But there are those of us who are frightened to go out into the open air of Europe in case, by so doing, some of the cold winds might hurt us. I respect the views of those who are against me in this respect. It may be that I would go too far and too fast. Therefore, I respect those who would seek to restrain me. But we are speaking essentially to an amendment to a clause which is the kernel of the Bill. It is the clause that seeks to establish a system of sending representatives elected by the people of this country to represent us in the European Assembly.
  I was very concerned about the clever speech made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He is always listened to with great attention, because he does not speak idly or unbriefed. Indeed, he speaks with great persuasiveness and makes us wonder whether he is right. However, this afternoon—although I believe that he is certain that he is right to warn us of the dangers—I feel that he was misleading the Committee. I see the Minister of State, Home Office in his place. The right hon. Member for Down, South quoted from the Minister's speech on Second Reading, at c. 1768. The right hon. Gentleman reminded us that the Minister of State said:
  812
  "I am advancing the argument that this Bill stands or falls on its merits as a measure to elect people directly to the Assembly"
  —and he continued with the important proviso—
  "with the powers of that Assembly as they are today."
  The right hon. Member for Down, South made use of that quotation as support for his argument that the amendment must be written into the clause if we are to interpret correctly what the Minister of State said. But he did not go on to quote what the Minister said immediately afterwards:
  "It is no part of my thesis that we are considering it as a step towards federalism."—[Official Report, 24th November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 1768.]
  That was the reminder from the Government that this Bill was not advancing very far ahead. It was a Bill not about federalism but about the Assembly as we know it today. However, the right hon. Member for Down, South latched on to that and claimed that there must be no change whatever in this European set-up.
  The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to constrict the Bill, and to constrain Parliament in such a way as to wreck the Bill. I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman—I wish that he were in his place now—but I shall not be misled by his intention. I suggest that his intention is to wreck the Bill, as surely as he wrecked the Parliament (No. 2) Bill 10 years ago.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: Perhaps I, at a much humbler level, may explain what is in the minds of the Ulster Unionists. With respect to my colleagues who represent other parts of the United Kingdom, I must point out that they have not had the experience that we have had of trying to run a Parliament and Government subordinate to another body. That is why it is a fallacy and nonsense to pretend that somehow or other we can divide democracy, have a certain element of it transferred to a superior body, and yet retain intact the powers of this Parliament of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Crouch: That intervention would be more appropriate to the devolution debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) knows well enough that, although he has lived through and experienced the establishment and running of Stormont in

  813
  Northern Ireland, it was not thought by many to have been a total failure. The trouble is that some Members here are afraid of exporting democracy to Europe.
  Mr. Molyneaux: Taking it from here.
  Mr. Crouch: I cannot understand why some hon. Members are against having Members of Parliament somewhere other than here. Members of Parliament in Europe can do as good a job as Members of Parliament here on behalf of the constituents that they represent. They can do their job effectively, I suggest, because they can be seen to be more active democratically if they are there as of right, having been elected rather than nominated.
  Mr. Gould: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are not against having Members of Parliament elsewhere in Europe? Indeed, we have gently pointed out that there are Members of Parliament elsewhere in Europe doing a very fine job.
  Mr. Crouch: I know the views of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould). Indeed, looking round the Chamber tonight, I believe that eight out of 10 Members present are passionately against my views. It may be that I am exaggerating, but I think that I know those who support me and those who are against me.
  I shall finish on this point because I know that you want me to, Sir Myer. The right hon. Member for Down, South wants to constrain and constrict us, and not just the Bill. But I am afraid that he now wants to constrain Parliament and the people of this country from real expression and real advance. He wants to put us into a corset. I believe that he wants to put a chastity belt around this country. That is what I fear about the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. He is not helping us. He will not help us with the Bill. He will fight to the very last to wreck it, and I shall do the same to try to advance its course.
  Mr. David Howell: The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), when moving the amendment earlier, began by saying that he believed that the purpose of the amendment reflected what he understood to be the Opposition's view—that any increase in
  814
  the powers of the Assembly at the expense of national Governments or national Parliaments should be by Act of Parliament. I accept fully that that was his intention and the intention of those hon. Members who have put forward the amendment. It is obviously a matter for debate whether the amendment does the trick, and that is what we have been debating for the last few hours.
  We have been discussing whether the amendment achieves the aims outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) during Second Reading, namely, that any increase in powers at the expense of this place should be by Act of Parliament. That was the view taken by my right hon. Friend and that was the view to which the right hon. Member for Battersea, North sought to give expression in his amendment.
  That is all that we argue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, in words that have been quoted this afternoon, asserted that any such increase in power would be unthinkable without an Act of Parliament. It was also pointed out during Second Reading that in a letter to Mr. Ron Hayward the Prime Minister expressed the same sort of sentiments, although he obviously used different words. No doubt we shall hear more about that in a moment from the Government Front Bench.
  My right hon. Friend did not argue, nor do I now, that the whole Bill should be put in suspension in order for there to be a procedure by which any increase in the power of the Assembly at the expense of this place be governed by an Act. Nor did he argue—he made this clear in Hansard—that somehow we could put all the procedures of the Assembly into the deep freeze. That is not the proposition that we have put from these Benches. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North or anyone else was asserting that we had gone beyond what my right hon. Friend said during Second Reading.
  During the Second Reading debate the question sprang up—it has continued today—whether under existing circumstances it was correct to say that an increase in the powers of the Assembly would need an Act and could be done only by Act of Parliament. That debate has been continued, particularly in the

  815
  dazzling and learned exposition of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir a Walker-Smith).
  During Second Reading the Home Secretary said that in his view it would need an Act of Parliament to give the Assembly any further powers. I do not think that we are right to conclude that from the debate today. Nor do I think that the Home Secretary was entirely correct, because we have had an example from the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) of the most important case when Article 203 of the Treaty was amended by Order in Council in ways that are set out in Command 6252.
  Those amendments govern the financial provisions—that was an increase in the powers of the Assembly—and it cannot be denied that the order went through this House without an Act. It went through this House with approval, but without an Act of Parliament. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that under the present procedures an Act of Parliament is required to increase the power of the Assembly at the expense of this House. That is not so, because it did not happen in that case.
  There was an increase in powers and the order was approved in this House under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act. The Home Secretary was incorrect. If he implied that that was the Prime Minister's view, the Prime Minister was incorrect as well.
  We are agreed—this is an unusual and untypical example of amicable agreement—that if the purposes outlined by my right hon. Friend and by the Prime Minister in his letter are to be fulfilled, something is necessary. The question that we have been debating is whether the amendment fulfils that purpose, whether some change to the Bill is now required to fulfil that purpose or whether it is the Government's view that further provisions already exist that will fulfil that purpose.
  8.15 p.m.
  My own inclination, having heard my right hon. and hon. Friends speak with great bearing and erudition on this matter, is that while a change is necessary the amendment goes considerably further in its actual purpose than what my right hon. Friend the Member for
  816
  Penrith and The Border had in mind, and what he specifically said during Second Reading.
  We should like to hear from the Government how they propose to proceed in a way that is consistent with the various statements of aim that have been made in various places about what is now desirable in order to ensure that in future, when the House deals with the question of a treaty that would enlarge the powers of the Assembly, it can do so only in the form of an Act going through this House and not by a more surreptitious procedure. We think that that is the way to proceed. But that has not been said during this dramatic debate; it has merely been asserted that it is right that this sovereign Parliament should have a full opportunity of passing an Act of Parliament to supervise and approve or not to approve any transfer of powers that would be an extension of the Assembly's powers at the expense of this House.
  That is our position, no more and no less. We should now like to hear how the Government intend to proceed on this matter.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): Everyone who has listened to this debate will agree that it touches on a very important and sensitive issue. A lot of the anxiety that underlies the debate about direct elections, and, indeed, the whole rôle of the European Assembly, is the fear held by a number of hon. Members on both sides that it is the start of a movement towards federalism and that the European Assembly will take unto itself powers that will challenge the House of Commons and, indeed, the national Parliaments.
  The decision of the Government was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in a letter to the General Secretary of the Labour Party on 30th September. Under the heading
  "The maintenance of the authority of national governments and parliaments",
  he said:
  "The Government has never accepted that the Community should develop into a federation. It is our policy to continue to uphold the rights of national Governments and parliaments. We do not envisage any significant increase in powers of the European Parliament

  817
  Should any such increase in powers be contemplated it would need the unanimous consent of the nine member states and of the parliaments."
  I think that effectively to increase the powers of the European Assembly, whether at the expense of the powers of another European institution or of national Governments, would require an amendment to the Treaty of Rome. Any such amendment could be made only by varying Article 236 of that Treaty, which requires a conference of representatives of Governments of member States to be convened by the Council to determine the amendment by common accord. Article 236 specifically stipulates that the amendment shall come into force only after ratification by all member States in accordance with the respective constitutional requirements.
  In France, the decision ratifying the Council of Ministers' decision on direct elections of 20th September 1976 required that any treaty extending the powers of the Assembly should be incorporated in the French constitution. This provision has been made because the French have a written constitution which requires that any Treaty, once ratified, is directly applicable and can override French law. We, who have no written constitution, find ourselves in a different situation.
  There have been discussions about amendments. The situation is that, if Parliament were to approve the ratification of such an amendment to the Treaty, the legal effect of the amendment which has been put down by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) would be that the European Assembly Elections Act would fall to the ground as soon as the Treaty increasing the powers of the Assembly was entered into. I do not think that hon. Members who have argued for the sovereignty of this Parliament and the decisions made here can possibly support the amendment, which would have the effect of blocking a decision of this Parliament.
  It is perfectly right to say that we should safeguard the rights of the House of Commons, but it is a fair argument that the House of Commons itself should be able to make these decisions. The Government's intention is clear. This Government do not wish to move in any direction towards a federation and do
  818
  not envisage any increase in the powers of the present Assembly.
  We cannot, and should not, attempt to bind our successors. Neither should we preclude the possibility that the House of Commons may decide to make such changes. The effect of the amendment is very sweeping. The Government share the concern expressed in both today and on Second Reading about any extension of the encroachment on the legislative powers of national Parliaments, particularly our own.
  The amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Down, South is defective on a number of grounds. It provides that any alteration—not necessarily an extension of the Assembly's powers—shall have the effect that I have outlined. This applies to minor as well as major alterations at the expense of Community institutions, such as the Commission, or of national Governments.
  If we wish to retain the right to make these decisions and our Parliament is to remain sovereign—a view which I hold—we must face the fact that Parliament can make decisions with which some hon. Members might disagree.
  Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend really saying that if Parliament passes any Act at all, because it must repeal or amend that Act, the situation will be that Parliament is blocking itself on any future action? I believe that it would be possible to amend this measure.
  Dr. Owen: I am coming to the question of how we could amend the Bill when it has become an Act.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said that what we were being offered was a verbal assurance. He made great play of the fact that certain prominent personalities of this Government might not necessarily always be here, and that even if they were their intentions, which might be clear now, might not be fulfilled. That is perfectly fair. I have always thought, right from the start, that there was a case for putting this assurance into the Bill.
  The Government's position is clear. We cannot accept any extension of powers of the Assembly which we feel will encroach on the powers of Westminster without specific legislation to that effect. We do not believe that it can be

  819
  done by affirmative order under the European Communities Act.
  The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), speaking on behalf of the Opposition, expressed agreement that it was unthinkable that the powers of the European Assembly should be increased at the expense of national Governments or Parliaments without an Act of Parliament, and that position was reiterated today.
  Mr. Powell: The Foreign Secretary used the expression, in his drafting of a possible enactment, "a change which would encroach upon the legislative powers of this House". He will appreciate that many increases in the powers of the Assembly could be imagined which would, in fact, limit the powers of national Governmentts or Parliaments without in any way formally limiting our rights to legislate. Will he bear this point in mind?
  Dr. Owen: One can take account of that.
  There are two provisions that hon. Members and others outside have found most objectionable in the existing procedure. The main one is that it is possible to make fundamental changes on a one-and-a-half-hour order under the European Communities Act. Some hon. Members have mentioned the budgetary powers. If the Assembly were to be given powers—certainly this is advocated by those who want to see a federal State—to raise revenue, this would require a treaty which was subject to ratification. It would be offensive to take such a power by using the affirmative order under the Act.
  It is technically possible, but unlikely, that the Assembly could be given powers in the future requiring amendments to the Treaty of Rome, and necessitating ratification, that would annul the laws of member States. It is possible to see the Assembly being given power to issue binding decisions, directives and regulations which would have effect in EEC countries and which would require an amendment to Article 189. Such an amending treaty, subject to ratification, would be subject to parliamentary approval under the Ponsonby rule. This would require legislation by Parliament under the existing Section 13 of the European Communities Act.
  820
  We believe that we should make clear in the Bill that we should do this by primary legislation. This is to meet a genuine anxiety which has been expressed. The question asked is how this should be done. At a later stage of the Bill the Government will introduce a new clause, which I think the right hon. Member for Down, South will agree is probably the best way of dealing with this issue rather than that we should seek to amend Clause I in the way he suggests. I have already explained that that amendment is defective in a number of respects. The clause will ensure that no extension of the powers of the European Assembly which would encroach on the legislative powers of this House can be agreed by the Government without an authorising Act of Parliament. When hon. Members see the exact wording of the clause, they will be able to decide whether it meets their objections.
  Mr. Spearing: Why was it not done earlier?
  Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend should recognise that this is a significant step forward in a direction which he and others have been advocating. It is a direct attempt to meet a matter of legitimate concern where action could be taken which would increase the powers of the European Assembly to the direct detriment of this House.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Jay: My right hon. Friend is referring to extension of the power of the Assembly which would encroach on the powers of this Parliament. Would he regard a further extension of the budgetary powers of the Assembly which did not directly affect this country as encroaching on the powers of this Parliament? I would have thought that that was a matter of opinion. Many people might think that it did not so encroach.
  Dr. Owen: This is a point that will come out when one examines the details. The question is, what are the powers?
  Mr. Spearing: Ah!
  Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend must appreciate that I am trying to deal with this matter, and it is a difficult power to define in a legal sense. What is not difficult to define is something that affects our own legislative power in this House.

  821
  The matter goes beyond that. The authority of Ministers comes from the authority of the House of Commons. I could have come to this House and argued the Ponsonby rules, which have served the country well since they were first introduced in 1926. They touch the question of Crown prerogative and the matter of trusting in international obligations. The powers of the European Assembly are rightly watched with great care and, understandably, the House wishes to subject those powers to scrutiny.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: In regard to the Ponsonby rules, I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that they were not introduced in 1926—it was a Conservative Government by then—but in 1923 or 1924. More importantly, however, that is only a procedure for ensuring information to the House and discusison thereby. What is at issue here is parliamentary tion to the House and discussion thereby which would extend the power of Parliament. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, with great respect, that he would be wise to avoid any such phrase as "encroaching on the powers of Parliament". That to some extent necessarily is a subjective value judgment. I think that this matter is capable of a simple formulation by way of ensuring Lord McNair's precedent laid down for Parliament in terms of ratification or amendment of the Treaty. That only brings our position on these matters into line with what is already enshrined in the written constitutions of most member States.
  Dr. Owen: The idea is that Parliament itself should decide. I do not know whether the term "encroachment" will survive the scrutiny of parliamentary draftsmen, and it may not even survive the scrutiny of the House. I am offering the Committee, in good faith, the possibility of tabling a new clause to deal with this matter. It will be a clause which can be discussed. I am indicating to the Committee that it is right for us to be most vigilant and to ensure that there is adequate control. I refer to that matter in the sense of not relying on a purely verbal assurance. I think that we have met most of the points of principle, and I emphasise that the details can be examined when we see the new clause.
  Mr. Powell: May I re-emphasise the importance of considering how unduly limiting is the definition of a change as encroaching on the legislative capability of this House? For example, if the Assembly were to take power to alter the budget or to impose taxation in some way, that would not alter the legislative powers of this House, just as formerly we were assured that there was no encroachment on the legislative powers of the House although there is direct taxation in other ways by the European Economic Community. This is a serious point.
  Dr. Owen: It needs to be looked at, but in that case the Assembly does not now have that power because the power is held by the Council of Ministers. We are therefore protected in the sense that it is a subject not for majority voting but for decision by Ministers. If one were to take away from individual Ministers a decision to be made nationally, that is how one would come back to the matter of its affecting the powers of the House. We shall look at this and we are perfectly prepared to take on board all the points that have been made in the debate. We shall come back to it.
  Mr. Marten: May I make a small point about language? The right hon. Gentleman said that he would offer the possibility of bringing forward a new clause. Can we be assured, to use the right hon. Gentleman's own expression about something else, that there are no weasel words here?
  Dr. Owen: I have said that the Government will introduce, at a later stage of the consideration of the Bill, a new clause to give effect to the concern that has been expressed. There are no weasel words in that. We have had a discussion about the scope of the legislation, and I do not want to poach on that territory. However, I am advised that it will be possible to introduce such a clause, and I give that assurance in good faith but, like everyone else, I am subject to the decisions of the Chair.
  Mr. David Howell: Guidance on this matter is already available to the Foreign Secretary on the question of the powers. It is in the amendment that we are discussing, and the point has rightly been made by the right hon. Gentleman that

  823
  the powers concerned are those that will take effect by virtue of any treaty as defined in Section 1 of the European Communities Act. We should be concerned with treaty alterations that hitherto had not been covered expressly, but the suggestion is that a clause would be brought forward to enable that to be done.
  On the matter of timing, we have not yet debated it but it is a central element in our consideration of the Bill and the way we approach the amendments and our view of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
  Dr. Owen: It will come up when the new clauses are taken. In view of the obvious interest of the Committee, we should try to ensure that the new clause is tabled in ample time for all Members to give it full consideration and to be able to make any adjustments that they might wish.
  Mr. Mikardo: On that point, does not my right hon. Friend realise that those of us who have been worried about this matter cannot think clearly about our attitude to Clause 1 until we see the text of the new clause? Cannot my right hon. Friend at least put it down before we have finished with Clause 1?
  Dr. Owen: My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is a far more experienced parliamentarian than I, and he knows perfectly well that the argument is that the Government should listen to the views of the House. The Government have listened, both on Second Reading and today, and have come forward in good faith with a proposition which it is open to anyone to amend or change or to take any view on it when it comes before the House. That is the normal way in which we deal with these matters. I urge hon. Members at least to accept that the Government have taken a step—although it may not be entirely what hon. Members want—in good faith to try to meet genuine feeling.
  Mr. Gould: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right in suggesting that a new clause is the best way of dealing with this, and the Government have taken a considerable step. However, the point that needs clarifying is whether in the
  824
  new clause the Government will bring forward and deal with the extension of the Assembly's powers rather than any diminution of the powers of this House. That is the essential point. We would want a new clause to change the focus from that suggested by my right hon. Friend to that which is implicit in the amendment.
  Dr. Owen: I have undertaken to look at this, but I have to tell the Committee that there are real problems in definition. It is much easier to define anything which affects the diminution of powers of the House. One can take it further by saying that something is a diminution of the powers of a Minister. That will probably cover the point of anxiety. We need to look at that and other areas.
  The word "powers" has been used rather loosely. I have described a number of areas of power—I spoke of legislative powers, which include regulations, directives and so on—and it is clear that we shall need definition here too. This will have to be subject to the scrutiny of the parliamentary draftsman and clarified by drafting to give hon. Members the opportunity to make any amendments. I am not claiming that it will meet all the points that the right hon. Member for Down, South wants, but it meets the basic anxiety relating to parliamentary sovereignty and decisions being taken to take away powers currently exercised by the House without the possibility of full and ample discussion and a considered decision being taken by the House on whether it wishes those powers to be taken away from it.
  Mr. Jay: I recognise that my right hon. Friend has genuinely and courteously tried to meet the points raised in the debate, but I am afraid that his formula contains too many loopholes and is too uncertain. Therefore, although we shall look at his new clause with great interest when he brings it forward, I hope that we shall press the amendment.
  Mr. Spearing rose—
  The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. Is the hon. Gentleman's intervention really urgent? I thought that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was closing the debate.
  Mr. Spearing: I have just a few sentences to say, Sir Myer. We appreciate very much what my right hon. Friend has said and the tone in which he has said it, but our doubts are mainly related to the polarity of his suggestion. It is easier to define when a new party is taking powers than when one finds that one's own powers are being prejudiced.
  New Clause 1 does precisely that. I understand that it is translated from the system adopted by the French Assembly

  Division No. 32]

  AYES

  [8.44 p.m.

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Hooley, Frank

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Moate, Roger

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Molyneaux, James

  Body, Richard

  Jeger, Mrs Lena

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Buchan, Norman

  Kerr, Russell

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Budgen, Nick

  Lamond, James

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Carson, John

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

  Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

  Lee, John

  Sillars, James

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Corbett, Robin

  Litterick, Tom

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  McCusker, H.

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Flannery, Martin

  Madden, Max

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Marten, Neil

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  George, Bruce

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Mr. John Ellis and Mr. David Stoddart.

  Gould, Bryan

  Mendelson, John

  Heffer, Eric S

  Mikardo, Ian

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Eyre, Reginald

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Rhodes James, R.

  Arnold, Tom

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Roper, John

  Bain, Mrs Margaret

  Graham, Ted

  Rose, Paul B.

  Bates, Alf

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Bean, R. E.

  Harper, Joseph

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Sandelson, Neville

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Sever, John

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

  Horam, John

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Small, William

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hunter, Adam

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Brittan, Leon

  John, Brynmor

  Stallard, A. W.

  Brotherton, Michael

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Buchanan, Richard

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Judd, Frank

  Stott, Roger

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Lamborn, Harry

  Strang, Gavin

  Carter, Ray

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Cartwright, John

  Lipton, Marcus

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  MacCormick, Iain

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Coleman, Donald

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Thompson, George

  Concannon, J. D.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Costain, A. P.

  Magee, Bryan

  Tinn, James

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Crouch, David

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Molloy, William

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Doig, Peter

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Watkinson, John

  Dormand, J. D.

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Neubert, Michael

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Dunn, James A.

  Ogden, Eric

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  Dunnett, Jack

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Palmer, Arthur

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  English, Michael

  Parker, John

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Ewing, Harry (Stiring)

  Radice, Giles

  Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Frank R. White.

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  and related entirely to the new powers of the European Assembly. My right hon. Friend says that he is going to look at this, but why is that which is apparently acceptable to the French Assembly and Government not acceptable here? My right hon. Friend did not refer once to New Clause 1 in his reply.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 49, Noes 122.
  The First Deputy Chairman: The Question is, That the clause stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion—
  Mr. Jay: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I wish to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Earlier today, we had a long discussion with the Chairman of Ways and Means about certain of the amendments that had not been selected, and he was courteous and helpful enough to give some of the main reasons why amendments to Clause 1, in the condition in which they had been first put down, were not suitable for selection. He also marked his selection today as provisional, which presumably implies that he was willing to reconsider his non-selection of some of these amendments.
  It is clear that, if we proceed to discuss Clause 1 as a whole now, there will not be time in the Committee thoroughly to consider what the Chairman said, in order that we may be able to redraft some of the amendments to Clause I which, as is evident from our earlier discussion, could fairly easily be put in order if time and opportunity were given.
  We have also heard from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that he proposes to introduce a clause on the vital point of powers. We have not yet seen that clause, and we are, necessarily, thoroughly vague about it. I think that it would be unsatisfactory to continue discussing the clause without knowledge of what the Government's new clause is to contain. I therefore very much hope that it will be possible to report Progress now, so that the Committee has the opportunity to proceed in a more orderly and considered way.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There is no further submission to make at the moment. I have listened with great interest to the submission by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), but I have to intimate that I decline to put that Question to the Committee.
  The Question is, That the clause stand part—
  Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I would like your guidance. When we entered the Chamber today, the Amendment Paper contained 11 amendments to Clause 1. It transpired that only one substantive amendment was either selected or in order. Earlier, we were given the reasons why certain matters were in order or were not in order. If we proceed now with the "clause stand part" debate, which you are about to call, Sir Myer, it means that we shall not be able, before Clause 1 is disposed of, to read what the Chairman said, in order that we might have the opportunity of tabling more amendments to Clause 1.
  As there were 11 amendments on the Order Paper this morning, it was not expected that we would reach the "clause stand part" debate so soon. If we proceed without having the opportunity to read the Chairman's ruling and to put down more amendments, it means that the Bill will have the same history of the same attitudes and feelings as those attached to a previous measure of this kind, on which we encountered the same difficulties—although I think that it has been agreed across the Floor of the House and with the Chair that the same constraints do not apply to this Bill or, indeed, to this Government.
  Those of us who believe that we should be able to table amendments, and that we should have the opportunity of advice from the Chair, hope that you can give us some guidance, Sir Myer. In the light of guidance from the Chair, we may wish to table more amendments to Clause 1, but if we now proceed to the "clause stand part" debate that will be impossible. For ever afterwards, those in this Chamber and those of us who put down the other 10 amendments which are not being called will have a legitimate grievance.
  9.0 p.m.
  It may be within the competence of the Leader of the House, who has democracy at heart and, indeed, the procedures of the House of Commons at heart, himself to move Progress. If that were to be the case, it might be possible. It has been discussed already. Perhaps you, Sir Myer, could suggest some procedure other than the moving of the motion. Otherwise,

  829
  we shall find ourselves in a very difficult position. I think that those of us present who have put our names to the 10 amendments will have a legitimate and reasonable grievance.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Is the hon. Member's point of order on the same point, or are we to have another two-hour session on points of order? I have given a ruling already, in response to the submission made by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), that I was not prepared to put to the Committee the Question, That I do report progress. What the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is doing, in effect, is challenging my ruling. I was present in the Chamber during the whole of the submissions on points of order during the occupancy of the Chair by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and I have already proposed the Question, That Clause I stand part of the Bill, and the Committee is going to proceed.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: On a point of order, Sir Myer. If, as you say, you were present during the submissions in regard to the amendments that were not accepted, I think you will agree with me that the Chairman was very helpful indeed in suggesting that had some of the amendments been worded slightly differently, they would have been selected. I particularly refer to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, which dealt with the salaries and allowances of Members of the European Assembly when they are elected. The point was quite rightly made that outside this place this is one of the major items of concern. It has been discussed throughout the country, and considerable concern has been expressed about it.
  The Chairman was good enough to say, as I understood him, that it was simply the way in which these amendments had been worded that prevented him from selecting them for discussion, and had they been worded rather differently, they would have been selected. If we now move to a debate on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, it will be impossible for those of us who are very concerned about this mat-
  830
  ter, and are trying to represent our constituents in regard to it, to table other amendments which, if suitably worded, would be accepted by the Chairman.
  The First Deputy Chairman: I think that we can dispose of this matter. There is some misunderstanding. As I have already said, I heard all the exchanges during that period before we embarked upon consideration of the amendments. My view is that it does not affect Clause 1. Apart from that, however, I remind hon. Members who are disposed to raise points of order that they have not been denied the opportunity of what they thought had been promised in the guidance given to them by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and that there is still the Report stage to come, when there will be the opportunity to put down those amendments.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I do not want to take up time, but there is a slight misapprehension on the part of the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas). The reference of the Chairman of Ways and Means to the amendments which could be in order if put down to an appropriate clause—he was good enough to indicate the clause, which was Clause 9, and the appropriate schedule—was to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, to which the hon. Member more specifically referred, were ruled out of order because they imposed a charge and would not be in order without a Ways and Means Money Resolution. So they are in rather a different position.
  The First Deputy Chairman: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That is what I was trying to convey to the Committee—that hon. Members are not being denied anything on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Spearing: We are.
  Mr. Stoddart: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I understood you to refuse to accept the motion that the Committee should now report Progress. What I hope to do is to persuade you to the view that you should accept that motion.
  The Chairman: Order. I have already given my ruling, and it cannot be challenged.
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Marten: My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has just pointed out to me—no doubt he will elaborate it in his remarks, if he succeeds in catching your eye, Sir Myer—the question of the Assembly of the European Communities. Nowhere in the Bill does it describe what the Assembly is. Nowhere does it refer to the Treaty of Rome, or anything like that. It might be any European Assembly, any assembly of the European Communities, and somebody else might set up a perfectly voluntary Assembly of the Communities in Europe. To which one would it refer? It requires clarification that it is the Treaty of Rome Assembly. Nowhere in the Bill is that mentioned. Perhaps that matter will be considered.
  We are grateful for the fall-back position, with the Government intending to introduce a new clause which will go some way towards meeting our object in tabling the amendment. As has been said, what matters is that there shall be no extension of the powers of the Assembly, than that there shall be no taking away of powers from the House of Commons. That is what we want.
  One is brought back to the question of the powers of the Assembly and the way in which one thinks it will develop. That is a matter that the Committee should consider very carefully. I go back in the history of this matter not so far as the beginning of the Treaty of Rome, where, clearly, the founders were aiming at a federal Europe; no more, no less. I go back merely to December 1974, to the Summit communique. The communique, which I have here, states that
  "The competence of the European Assembly will be extended, in particular by granting it certain powers in the Communities' legislative assembly."
  That gives some indication of what it is after, which is why we must be very careful about the way in which the new clause is drafted.
  To cover their intentions, which are so clearly expressed there, we go to the Tindemans Report, which Mr. Tindemans drew up after one year of solid study of the Community. He made a most interesting report, saying how the Community should progress. On page 4 he speaks of
  832
  "remaining personally convinced that Europe will only fulfil its destiny if it espouses federalism."
  So the great expert who has conducted a greater study of the Community than anybody in the Parliament of the United Kingdom gives it as his opinion that it must head towards a federal Europe. There again we are concerned with powers.
  Then Mr. Ortoli, who was President of the Commission, writes as follows, in his annual report for 1975:
  "If the elected Parliament is to be true to its calling"—
  it would not be anything other than true to its calling with the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) as one of the bastions of the Assembly—
  "it must be given legislative power."
  So that is confirmed again by the President of the Commission in 1975.
  Right hon. and hon. Members might have heard about the attempts of the European Conservatives or Euro-Conservatives to form an alliance with the other similar parties—Christian Democrats, and so on—in the Assembly in that part of Europe which is called the Community. The other parties—the Christian Democrat parties of the EEC countries—have formed a party called the European People's Party. That is the one which I think our Conservatives over there would be trying to work with.
  Article 3 of the statute of that new political party makes it quite clear:
  "Objectives.

  (c) it shall participate"—

  that is, this party shall participate—
  "in, and support the process of, European integration and cooperate in the transformation of Europe into a European Union with a view to achieving Federal Union."
  Again, that is clear. We must ensure that any powers which might be required do not take us towards that objective.
  This year, Lord Thomson, the former Commissioner, said:
  "After direct elections it will be converted into a rival of national Parliaments, fighting for a fairer share of Parliamentary power".
  That is the reality from Mr. Tindemans, Mr. Ortoli and now Lord Thomson, who has declared exactly what they are after—more power. We are discussing the question of stopping them getting more power and how to do it.

  833
  In a more emotional way, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), speaking in the Assembly on 15th June this year, said:
  "if I may say so, if we as Europeans fail to transcend the old nation-state boundaries, we will ultimately consign ourselves to the obscurity which we will have deserved".
  There was apparently then applause from the European Conservative Group.
  That is the emotional side of the argument. It shows a lack of faith in our country and a defeatist attitude towards our country if it is said that if we do not transcend nation-State boundaries—in other words, cease to be nation States—we shall consign ourselves to obscurity. What absolute rubbish!
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Surely the hon. Gentleman is being unfair. It does not necessarily indicate a defeatist attitude; it indicates a different concept of the rôle of this country, which is not necessarily defeatist, but may be very optimistic.
  Mr. Marten: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has intervened, because if he had made that remark I would not have criticised it, as he is an out-and-out and accepted federalist, and I admire him for it. I disagree with him, but I always respect him. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham has been a bit of a Gaullist at times, and that remark does not tie in with the attitude that he previously adopted.
  Almost finally on the point about the powers in the clause, I come to the famous manifesto of the European Movement, published in November this year. Paragraph 7 reads:
  "we will work … to transform the Community into a federal democracy …".
  Later it says that a European Government will be wanted and that until then majority voting should be used more widely.
  All those are red lights flashing a warning that we must be extremely careful in drafting the amended clause to which the Foreign Secretary referred. The Economist of 26th Novmber carries an article with the title "Look before you leap". I agree with that. It is about Mr. Roy Jenkins. He is sometimes called "President Jenkins" in the Euro-bumph,
  834
  but that is too much like "President Carter". If we continue along that line, we shall have references to "President Plumb" of the NFU, and so on. The article refers to the question of monetary union. It states that
  "Despite Mr. Jenkin's retreat"—
  that is, in the face of the fire from Mr. Ortoli—
  "Germany's finance minister, Herr Apel was scathing about the modest Ortoli paper when finance ministers took a first look on 22nd November. He waspishly described it as a 'string of pearls without any string'. And he insisted that Germany could not agree to a bigger and more redistributive EEC budget as long as countries such as Britain opposed political integration."
  That is from one of the EEC countries going for political integration. We know that the Germans want a federal Europe, for a variety of reasons.
  I think that I have given sufficient warning of the red lights to show that the new clause must be very carefully drafted to meet our objections.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in her speech on Europe in Rome earlier this year, said:
  "I do not believe that the nation States in Europe will wither away".
  I agree with her. She was saying that the nation State will survive. The logic of that is that no further powers will be given to the European Assembly at any time. That is the Conservative official view.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Mikardo: You told us, Sir Myer, that you were present when your predecessor in the Chair was kind enough to give the House advice on some matters concerning procedure and suggestions on amendments on the same topic that had been tabled in different terms and in different places. You will recall, Sir Myer, that you advised one of my hon. Friends that, even if one of the amendments was not called, it would be open to him to raise matters in it in the debate on the clause.
  I propose to take the advice of the Chairman and make some references to some of the ideas in the amendments. I shall not attempt to cover them all, but I am sure that my hon. Friends will step in and fill all the gaps that I shall leave. I appreciate why I cannot talk about the amendments themselves, but I propose to

  835
  draw the attention of the House to some of the issues covered by the amendments and to some other issues.
  If it came about that we were to have the opportunity of drafting revised amendments before there was a decision on Clause 1, we should not need to pursue all these various issues in the debate on the clause. I appreciate that the matter is entirely at your discretion, Sir Myer, but if you found it possible later to accept a motion to report Progress, perhaps from the Leader of the House or from another hon. Member, even in the small hours, and we had not completed discussion of this clause, it might be possible to deal with the issue with a little more celerity.
  It might take us until the early morning to finish discussion of Clause 1, and I am bound to go through the various issues that are raised by the clause and to take my share of the Committee's duty to inquire into all the matters that are covered by the clause, along the lines suggested by the Chairman.
  I refer to a subject raised by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). It involves the question of powers, which has occupied a considerable amount of time this evening. I welcomed the offer of the Secretary of State to table a new clause, but I reiterate what I ventured to put to him in a short intervention—namely, that it really is not possible for us to take a considered, balanced view of our attitude to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", without knowing the text of the new clause. We cannot vote without seeing that text.
  I am not accusing my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary of any lack of good faith—I am sure that he made his offer in the best of good faith—but there are various ways of drafting the clause. Some of them will suffice, while some will not. Until we see the text, we shall be buying, in this debate, a pig in a poke. It might transpire that the new clause will still have to rely on ministerial assurances, such as those that have been quoted almost ad nauseam today, as a safeguard for the powers and the rôle of the House. If that is so, I say only that in this, my ninth Parliament, I can recall many events which have led me to the conclusion that I should adapt the proverb and say that all too often ministerial assurances are
  836
  piecrusts. Sometimes they have been piecrusts made of flaky pastry, and very thin flaky pastry at that.
  So we want to know whether we are to have a clause which safeguards the achievement of the objectives for which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have today been pressing. Or are we to have a text which will not stand up without the reinforcement of those ministerial assurances, without someone being able to argue what were the intentions of Parliament in respect of Clause 1 and the new clause respectively?
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: There is another point that my hon. Friend might like to consider. Earlier today, during business questions, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced that there would be no Common Market business next week. Since my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary might come up with something which is supposed to meet the arguments put forward on the first amendment, it would seem ludicrous to conclude discussion on Clause 1 tonight. The Government are not including the Bill in next week's business, and it would seem that they can afford to leave it for that time. Therefore, it would be sensible not to conclude this debate on the clause tonight. The Government have delayed the debate on the Bill in order to have a debate on proportional representation in the week before Christmas—they have not told us that, but that is the arrangement that has been made behind the scenes with the Liberals—so why conclude this debate on the clause tonight?
  Mr. Mikardo: There seems to be some force in my hon. Friend's argument. If no time is to be allocated to the Bill next week, what the heck is the hurry to get Clause 1 tonight? Having got it, it appears that we are only to sit on our bottoms and do nothing for a couple of weeks.
  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which was as cogent as always, and I return to the difficulty which we shall face unless certain provisions are specifically written into the Bill.
  Over the last three or four weeks, in respect of another Act of Parliament, something has happened in the courts

  837
  which ought to cause us furiously to think. That Act first came before this House as a very small Private Member's Bill in 1975, with nothing like the importance and the moment of the Bill now before the House. It became the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976. I am not, with respect, moving out of order, Sir Myer, in talking about that measure, because in doing so I wish to refer very closely to the Bill that is now before us.
  Mr. Skinner: It is analogous.
  Mr. Mikardo: When that Bill went through the House, the whole House understood at every stage—and the Lord Chancellor so advised—that its provisions applied equally to cohabiting couples as to married couples. That was manifestly the intention of Parliament. It was never in question. Then it was challenged in the courts in respect of cohabiting couples. The court ruled that it could not take into account, in deciding this cause, what were the intentions of Parliament. Indeed, the president of the court refused to allow to be admitted in evidence passages from the proceedings in Committee and in the House which made clear the intentions of Parliament.
  It sounds like a small thing, Sir Myer, but you, with your long experience of these matters and your great knowledge of procedures of the House, will realise that it makes an enormous difference to us. If it is a fact that the intentions of Parliament—
  Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mikardo: Gladly, when I have finished the sentence. If it is a fact that the intentions of Parliament are not to be taken into account in deciding causes at law, we must make very sure indeed that our intentions are crystallised precisely in the wording of the Bill.
  Mr. Budgen: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he approves of the practice of Lord Denning—he was the judge who looked at the debates in Parliament upon that Bill, as it then was—presumably he would have approved of a judge looking at the observations of Tory politicians when they were introducing the Industrial Relations Bill. The hon. Gentleman
  838
  cannot have it both ways. Or would he say that the proper ground on which he bases himself was in his last sentence, when he said that it is important to get legislation right, because the courts interpret it not as it is believed it ought to be but as it is?
  Mr. Mikardo: I do not think that that intervention does justice to the hon. Gentleman, who makes percipient contributions to our thinking. I was not talking about taking into account the observations of politicians in the House, and it does not matter tuppence whether they are Tory, Labour, Liberal or anything else. I did not say that at all. I was talking about taking into account what was clearly expressed as an intention of the House—not an obiter dictum by some politician, but the intention of the House. The hon. Gentleman in the end got round to the right answer but for the wrong reason. The point, of course, is that this puts upon us very much greater pressure to ensure that Acts say exactly what we intend them to mean, as far as it is humanly possible so to do. I join the hon. Gentleman in applauding Lord Denning's reversal of the decision of a predecessor. That, however, is not final. There has been notice of appeal to the House of Lords, and it can all be shifted back the other way.
  9.30 p.m.
  I do not want to go further into discussion of that matter except to point out —I repeat myself, but I promise to do so only once—that since a ministerial assurance, accepted by the House, indicates the intention of Parliament, if it is a fact that the intention of Parliament does not weigh in the courts, ministerial assurances ought not to be relied upon to give us the safeguards that we want. However much we know that assurances are given in good faith, and however much we trust and admire the Ministers who give them, it would seem that such assurances cannot be relied upon. Therefore, it is essential—I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench are listening, because I am addressing these remarks specifically to them—that we see the proposed text of the new clause promised by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary before we are asked to come to a conclusion on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill".

  839
  It would be very helpful if one of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench were to get up now and tell us that that is the intention. It would save an awful lot of talk and a very late night or a very early morning. The only point that worries me is that I have to deliver my daughter to Heathrow Airport at 6.40 a.m. I shall not be able to carry on after 6 o'clock, but I shall be all right till then. As my right hon. and hon. Friends know, I shall be bright, lively and alert all the way through to 6 a.m.
  Seriously, I suggest that it would save a lot of time and trouble if my right hon. Friend would seek to ask leave for the Committee to report Progress before we are asked to reach a decision on whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. We could then have a quiet, shortish debate and have a good look at the revised amendments that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides will no doubt want to table. It would be a sensible way to proceed. In the end it would reduce, rather than increase, the time spent debating the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill". If my right hon. Friend wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to give way to him.
  Mr. Skinner: Do not be shy.
  Mr. Mikardo: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend does not want to intervene. However, I hope that he will have further thoughts on this matter and seek to intervene later. In the event, I must go on.
  Mr. John Lee: Before my hon. Friend goes on, I should like to take up a point that he made earlier. Is there not another reason for certainty in legislation and for being specific in this clause? One other spinoff, as one might describe it, of the judgment in the celebrated case of Davis v. Johnson, to which my hon. Friend alluded, is that Lord Denning decided that the Court of Appeal could overrule itself.
  We now have the situation that the two most superior courts in the land have decided that they are not bound by their own decisions. The House of Lords made that decision some time ago, and the Court of Appeal decided that this week. Does not that inject a further element of uncertainty into the whole of law-making at large and, therefore, make it imperative
  840
  that we should spell these matters out in as much detail as possible so that we can see the way ahead that much more clearly?
  Mr. Mikardo: I go along with my hon. Friend as far as a layman can go along with a lawyer as learned as he is. If I tried to follow my hon. Friend all the way, I would rapidly get out of my depth.
  Of course, it must not be thought that the case for having legislation precise and clear is a new one. We have always tried to make the text of the law as unambiguous as we can. If someone has to go to a court to find out what the law means, we accept that as evidence of failure on the part of Parliament to make its intentions clear.
  I am not saying that we have always been slipshod in the past, but it is now necessary to become precise. We have always tried to be precise, but, of course, no man is so wise as to be able to anticipate all the contingencies that might arise. Therefore, in our mortal fallibility we unintentionally leave some ambiguities.
  The only fresh point I was making was that in the past we have relied a great deal on ministerial assurances when they have been formal and given in good faith, but the events over the last few weeks warn us that we can no longer do so.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is missing another point that is often instanced in this place and outside in respect of ensuring that a Bill can be easily interpreted by the courts. Not only do we have Committee and Report stages, but we often hear from the great constitutionalists that there is another place to deal with Bills in order to tidy them up, to insert the dots, the semi-colons and so on and to make sure that they are fit to be interpreted properly by the lawyers. But the real problem in respect of the House of Lords—I think my hon. Friend will agree—is that it is not the safeguard, certainly in relation to Common Market matters, that it should be.
  With his great knowledge and experience, my hon. Friend will recall that when we initially dealt with the Common Market legislation in 1972—we were then innocent and naive members on the Opposition Benches—we expected the House of Lords, with its great wisdom, constitutional knowledge and know-how,

  841
  to fashion that Bill in a way which could be properly interpreted by the courts so that there would be no breakdowns in communication and interpretation thereafter. But, somehow, the House of Lords did nothing about that Bill. It did not even insert a comma.
  That is what makes it important for my hon. Friends and all hon. Members to understand that, with regard to this Bill above all others the House of Lords can be no safeguard, even though it may be a safeguard in respect of other Bills, which I very much challenge.
  With regard to the Common Market, however, there is such a pro-Market majority in the House of Lords that there can be no safeguard at all. That is what makes it even more necessary for my right hon. Friend to get up and say—
  The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): The hon. Gentleman is an astute politician, but he is confusing the difference between a speech and an interjection. I am glad that he agrees with me. Will he be kind enough to complete his interjection very quickly?
  Mr. Skinner: I was so tied up with this that I was inserting the semi-colons and putting in the dots. I was explaining to my hon. Friend that this is such a crucial matter and of the utmost importance that he is right on the ball in demanding that the Government Front Bench should make a statement.
  Mr. Mikardo: I hate to differ from you, Mr. Murton, but I thought that my hon. Friend's confusion was a little different from the way in which you put it. I thought that he was failing to distinguish between trespassing upon the time of the Committee and encroaching upon eternity. However, I would say to him that I do not join him in his criticism of the other place. I have a great regard for the other place and I shall go on having it as long as that place exists, which I hope will be for a very short time.
  The real trouble with the other place in connection with this Bill is that it will not come to discuss it until we have finished with it. I am talking about something happening before we reach a
  842
  decision on whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. It will be much too late when the other place considers the Bill. Even if my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover persuaded them all to have a road-to-Damascus conversion, it would be too late to get anything done about it.
  The plea I am making to the Secretary of State is that we should be able to see the text of his proposed new clause and put amendments to it before we are asked to come to a conclusion on whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.
  We have been discussing the question of powers, and we could have gone on discussing it for a long time. I am sure some of my hon. Friends still wish to discuss it, because it is vital. There has been a great deal of difference of opinion among people—genuine differences of view—with opinions on both sides of the Committee held equally firmly and equally sincerely about the extent to which the existence of the European Assembly, never mind about its extended powers, will diminish the rights of the House, and certainly about the extent to which, if the powers are obtained, this will reinforce the powers of the Commission to make regulations binding on us. The extent to which the very rôle and the part to be played by the House of Commons would be gravely affected is also a matter of widely differing opinions.
  Mr. Spearing: Was my hon. Friend present at the debate the other day when the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) welcomed the prospect of having another Member in his area to whom he could refer matters relating to the EEC? Would he care to speculate what would happen in North-East London if we told our constituents to go and see their directly-elected Member who had no powers ultimately in the European Assembly?
  Mr. Mikardo: The very putting of the question by my hon. Friend indicates the answer. We have heard this afternoon from hon. Members on both sides how a few months ago an increase in the powers of the Assembly went through unchallenged and without any need for legislation in a most perfunctory manner either on a Friday or in one of those late-night dos that we have, when there

  843
  are about half a dozen sleepy hon. Members around—
  Mr. SkinnerNot sleepy.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Mikardo: One wakeful Member and half a dozen sleepy ones. A motion then comes before the House at that hour containing masses of Brussels verbiage—what some of us call Brussels Chinese, a language that nobody understands. That motion goes through without anybody having appreciated what is before the House.
  It has been done once, and there is nothing to prevent its being done again. That will happen unless we write into our law a provision that such a matter cannot go through this House in a hole-and-corner fashion but shall be the subject of full-scale legislation that alerts us all. We need alerting, in view of the great volume of stuff that comes before us on serious and important issues. Such a matter should never again be allowed to go through without coming before the House in a form in which we are alerted to its importance and significance.
  In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould), my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary seemed to suggest that his new clause would be triggered off only by an attempt by the European Assembly to obtain powers that encroached on the powers of this House. That is a matter about which there could be all kinds of subjective judgments. If a new clause is to come along on those lines it will not do any good at all, because we require a better insurance policy than that. The only insurance policy is wording that requires an Act of Parliament if the European Assembly desires to make any significant changes in its powers. We shall then be in a position to examine the proposed changes, and we can judge for ourselves whether and to what extent they encroach on the powers of this House. That is the only thorough going and effective safety net that will be of real value to us. That is why we must see the wording before we can be fairly asked to give blanket approval to the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  I leave that subject, although I am sure that some of my hon. Friends, and,
  844
  indeed, some Opposition Members who are more knowledgeable on these matters than I am, will seek to probe the matter a little further.
  I wish now to deal with the matters raised by Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 and consequential Amendments Nos. 18, 22 and 23, which are amendments to Clause 2. We do not yet know whether they have been selected. This part of the discussion relates to whether those we send as representatives to the Assembly are to represent only the people of the United Kingdom, or the people of the United Kingdom, its colonies and dependencies. That is a subject of considerable moment. Let us examine the matter not through our eyes but through the eyes of any citizen of one of those colonies or dependencies.
  The welfare and livelihood of such a citizen could be directly affected by decisions taken, motions carried and representations made by the European Assembly. A citizen of Bermuda or Hong Kong could have his trade considerably affected by the mucking about of the European Commission. Such a citizen could have his welfare affected by someone going from East London to talk in the European Assembly—and yet he would have no access to the Assembly at all.
  Last week one hon. Gentleman talked about his own constituents being unable to have access to someone to discuss European Assembly matters affecting them. If one accepts that point, one must consider what access a citizen of Bermuda, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar or Hong Kong would have. He would have no one to go to.
  Let us consider what would happen if representatives were elected on a constituency basis. Which British Member of the European Assembly would such a citizen consult about what was imposed on him by the Community? Would it be the Member for East London or the Member for Aldgate Pump to Dagenham, which will presumably be one constituency? Is that the Member to whom this poor chap in Hong Kong would apply for redress of his grievances, to whom he could write and say "Please go to Strasbourg, and remember that I do not have the same trade union protection as do some other people, and that my

  845
  employers are being disadvantaged by EEC tariffs and regulations", or whatever else? Would it be that Member whom he should contact, or the one covering the counties of Devon and Cornwall? I ask hon. Members which would be the most appropriate as the voice of the citizen of Gibraltar. Would it be the Member for Devon and Cornwall or the Member for Aldgate Pump to Dagenham?
  Let us consider what would happen if we adopted the regional system. How would the poor chap in Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands decide between the Member for the North-West Region and the Member for the South-East Region? In fact, he will not have any access. He will have his welfare affected to a greater or lesser extent by what goes on in Strasbourg and he will have absolutely no one to turn to.
  Mr. Powell: Is there not a more exquisite reason for doubt and difficulty that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is overlooking, which is that unless we get rid of the regional list this chap will not even know who are the Members for those constituencies?
  Mr. Mikardo: That is absolutely right. If we had the first-past-the-post system the poor chap would at least know the name of someone he could write to, although he would have no claim on that person beyond the right to point out these things, but he would not even know the person's name if we had the regional list system.
  Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I am sorry to stop the proceedings but the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) was, as usual, making an extremely boring speech, and most Members—as a result of his speaking for more than half an hour—had switched off and were no longer listening closely.
  I forced myself to try to concentrate briefly on what the hon. Gentleman was saying. Unless I misunderstood him, he seemed to be talking about a clause that was not Clause 1. I understood that this was a debate on whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, if it is a point of order, Mr. Murton. Before you answer it, I should like to make representations on behalf of many of my hon. Friends and many Opposition Members. We have greatly enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), but we have been informed in the last 10 minutes of an area that has not been discussed before. It is extremely important that all this material is brought out.
  I understand why the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is getting a bit aerated about the matter. He hopes to be one of the 81 Members of the Assembly picking up £30,000 a year and he does not want someone from Hong Kong writing to him. That is his problem.
  The Chairman: I do not think that any comment is needed from the Chair.
  Mr. Mikardo: I am sure that if I had strayed away from the paths of order, Mr. Murton, you would have been quick to redirect my feet on to the proper path without the assistance of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). I shall go on talking for as long as I am in order, and if the hon. Gentleman is getting a little tired, or finds his powers of concentration flagging, I give him leave to go out for a noggin or two in the next hour or so. He can then come back for the last part of my speech.
  It is a matter of importance who the representatives are to represent. There is nothing in the Long Title about this matter.
  Mr. Body: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of who is to speak up for those living in the dependancies and affected by policies of the EEC, may I ask whether he is aware that the French are coping with this problem very much better than we are? Their equivalents to Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands—that is, Martinique and Guadaloupe—will be represented in the Assembly. Yet we are to be deprived of the opportunity of amending the Bill to allow the counterparts of Martinique to be represented.
  Mr. Mikardo: I hasten to assure the hon. Gentleman that I was not about to leave this point. He has anticipated one of the arguments that I proposed to put

  847
  to the Committee. Do we think it right that a citizen of a British colony should have less power and influence in this matter than a citizen of a French colony?
  The Long Title does not say who is to be represented by the representatives. Only later do we come to a reference to the people of the United Kingdom.
  It would have been open to the Government to draft the Bill in such a way that it covered the colonies and dependancies as well as the people of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it is still open to them to do that by a new clause or an amendment. We have already had an undertaking, for which we are very grateful, about a new clause. If the Government can bring in a new clause along the lines

  Division No. 33]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Arnold, Tom

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Rhodes James, R.

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  George, Bruce

  Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Roper, John

  Bates, Alf

  Graham, Ted

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hannam, John

  Sandelson, Neville

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Harper, Joseph

  Sever, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Brittan, Leon

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Small, William

  Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

  Hooley, Frank

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Horam, John

  Stallard, A. W.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Howell David (Guildford)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Carter, Ray

  Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Cartwright, John

  Hunter, Adam

  Stott, Roger

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  John, Brynmor

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Strang, Gavin

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Cohen, Stanley

  Judd, Frank

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Kilfedder, James

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Corbett, Robin

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Tinn, James

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  van Straubenzee, W R.

  Crouch, David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Magee, Bryan

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

  Dormand, J. D.

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Watkinson, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Dunn, James A,

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Dunnett, Jack

  Molloy, William

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Durant, Tony

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Dykes, Hugh

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Neubert, Michael

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  English, Michael

  Ogden, Eric

  Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

  Ennals Rt Hon David

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Palmer, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Donald Coleman.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Radice, Giles

  NOES

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Henderson, Douglas

  Marten, Neil

  Atkinson, Norman

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Bidwell Sydney

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Mikardo, Ian

  Body, Richard

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Moate, Roger

  Budgen, Nick

  Kilfedder, James

  Molyneaux, James

  Carson, John

  Lamond, James

  Powell, Rt Hon J Enoch

  Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

  Litterick, Tom

  Rooker, J. W.

  Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

  McCusker, H

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

  Sillars, James

  Flannery, Martin

  Madden, Max

  Skinner, Dennis

  proposed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, they could certainly bring in—
  It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made and Question put,
  That the European Assembly Elections Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mrs. A Taylor.]
  The House divided: Ayes 116, Notes 45.

  Spearing, Nigel

  Welsh, Andrew

  Stoddart, David

  Wigley, Dafydd

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Mr. Bryan Gould and Mr. John Lee.

  Thompson, George

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Mikardo rose—
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd)rose—
  The Chairman: Mr. Judd.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. With great respect, I was in mid-sentence when you were required to suspend proceedings by the rules of the House. Is it not the custom that if a Member has the Floor when there is an interruption, he is called to complete his observations?
  The Chairman: Not in Committee. If a Minister rises, the Chair is bound to call him.
  Mr. Jay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. It may not be absolutely necessary under the rules than an hon. Member who is speaking in these circumstances should continue, but surely, as a matter of normal courtesy and the normal practice of the House of Commons, it must be right that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) should be given the chance to continue. I hope that in any case my hon. Friend the Minister of State will extend that courtesy to him.
  10.15 p.m.
  The Chairman: Perhaps I can explain to the right hon. Gentleman. I may not have made it clear. I am not bound to call a Minister, but it is customary. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) could resume thereafter if he felt inclined to do so.
  Mr. Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. It is surely not the practice of the House of Commons for a Minister to be called simply because he rises. That is surely even more the case if an hon. Member is already on his feet. What seems to have happened in this instance
  852
  is that, through the purely fortuitous circumstance of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) having been interrupted by the need to suspend the 10 o'clock rule, a Minister has taken the opportunity of rising to his feet. However, what it means is that he has risen in the middle of a speech being made by my hon. Friend.
  The Chairman: We are in fact in Committee, and that has a certain bearing on the matter.
  Mr. Mikardo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I have served on hundreds and hundreds of Committees in my time and I cannot recall a single occasion in all my parliamentary experience when a Member who has been interrupted in the middle of a speech as a result of some procedural change has not been called to finish his speech, irrespective of who rises to speak. I am bound to say. Mr. Murton, that I understand your difficulty. I think that a better advised Minister would have had the good sense and the courtesy not to rise in the middle of a speech of one of his hon. Friends. I very much doubt whether the Minister will commit the same silly mistake ever again.
  The Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced parliamentarian, knows that that is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Judd: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I would simply like to say that I have listened with such engrossed fascination to what my hon. Friend was saying that I was very anxious to seize an opportunity of beginning to deal with some of his lucid points. However, if my hon. Friend wishes to continue, far be it from me to interfere with his flow of reason and thought, and I shall willingly give way to him.
  Mr. Mikardo rose—
  Mr. Moate: On a point of order, Mr. Murton—
  The Chairman: Perhaps we could take a point of order from the Opposition side of the Committee.
  Mr. Moate: I wonder whether you would be good enough, Mr. Murton, to clarify your ruling. Even if the Minister gives way and allows the hon. Member

  853
  for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) to proceed, I think that some of us are a little bit concerned about the ruling that you have given about the normal custom in Committee. Those of us who sit on the Back Benches find it hard enough to compete with the Front Benches in the normal procedures of the House of Commons. I think that we would be a little alarmed if it was recognised to be the custom for Ministers to have priority and that when they chose to rise they would be recognised by the Chair.
  Whilst I cannot claim to have the experience of the hon. Member who is at the moment in mid-sentence, in the seven years that I have been a Member of Parliament I have never known an occasion in Committee when a Minister who has chosen to rise has automatically had, when a Member was in mid-speech, the right to catch the Chairman's eye by custom or by the rules of the House of Commons. I would be grateful, Mr. Murton, if you could clarify the position.
  Mr. Stoddart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. We must have clarification on this point because it seems to me, although I have not the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), that Back-Bench Members in Committee will in future be at the mercy of the Front Bench and that, at any time when a Member is making a telling point that a Minister does not like, the Minister can get to the Despatch Box, catch the Chairman's eye, and take precedence over the Back-Bench Member who is on his feet. That is an intolerable intrusion into the rights of Back-Benchers, and I hope that you will reconsider your ruling.
  The Chairman: On the resumption of debate in Committee, the hon. Member who was speaking on the previous occasion does not automatically have the Floor. I think that that is well understood.
  Mr. Powell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. I submit to you that it is not on all fours with the situation that a Member who was speaking at the conclusion of the previous sitting has the Floor when the House resumes in Committee but that it is extremely rare and
  854
  unusual for the Member who was speaking not to remain in possession of the Floor when the House is resumed after being interrupted merely in order to take the suspension motion. I am sure that it would be helpful to the Committee if you could draw the attention of hon. Members to the last occasion when this practice was put into effect.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. As a relatively new Back Bencher, it seems to me that on many occasions in Standing Committee we have to suspend the sitting in order to come down to the House to vote. That seems to be an open invitation to the Minister in charge of a Bill imediately to rise to his feet when we return upstairs. As an ordinary, relatively inexperienced Back Bencher, I think that we should have clarification of this matter, because obviously when we are speaking in Committee we should have to bear in mind the whole time that we might be called away to vote in the Chamber and we would not know when we returned whether we would be able to continue to make the points we wanted to make.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. It is such a manifestly ridiculous practice that you are suggesting exists in the House of Commons that it probably is the practice, and I accept it. I wonder whether you would enlighten us as to the page of "Erskine May" on which this appears, and could you read us the appropriate sentence?
  The Chairman: It may be necessary for research to be conducted, but what I said before is the fact. I suggest that there is a slight difference between returning to the Chamber to vote for a particular purpose, as the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) suggested, and the situation resulting from resuming the House to take the business motion. In normal circumstances I would say that if a Minister rises he catches the eye of the Chair, but there is nothing to prevent a Member who has spoken once from rising and speaking again should he catch the eye of the Chair.
  Mr. George Cunningham: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. You

  855
  will recognise that very often in Committee upstairs a Member is on his feet at the end of a sitting. I have served in the House of Commons for only seven and a half years, but in that time it has always been my experience that at the next sitting that Member is automatically called to continue his remarks.
  The same practice may not apply on the Floor of the House. Obviously, one understands some reasoning behind this practice, but, in contrast with sittings of the House, as such, a Member, as you say, can rise again, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) can rise again to pick up the second half of his speech if the Minister intervenes now.
  The question is, what is the practice of the House? The practice of the House should be enshrined in a Standing Order, where it ought to be, of course, but never is. There is no Standing Order, I suggest, which you can invoke in support of the ruling you have given. There never is. Is there a sentence in "Erskine May"? I am prepared to recite "The Green Eye of the Little Yellow God" or whatever is necessary in order to let this appropriate sentence be found, but either we go according to the established practices of the House as enshrined in that silly book or we do not. If there is something established about it, we should know and it should be possible to quote it immediately before one has to look up the index.
  Mr. Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. Following on from what everybody else has said, as a relatively inexperienced Member—a member of the awkward squad—may I ask whether as the custom is of extreme long standing and reference to it is difficult to find, rather than hear my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) recite "The Green Eye of the Little Yellow God", it would not be sensible to allow you, Mr. Murton, and the Clerks to consult the books? The only way in which that can be done satisfactorily is to suspend the proceedings.
  Mr. Madden: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. I was sorry to be deprived of the opportunity of hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal
  856
  Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) continue his speech. Under the heading "Precedence on resuming an adjourned debate", "Erskine May" states on page 416:
  "When a debate has been adjourned, while a Member was speaking, upon the interruption of business prescribed by the standing orders, he is entitled, on the next occasion, to resume the adjourned debate, and continue his speech".
  I should be grateful, Mr. Murton, if you would reconsider your ruling in the light of that statement.
  The Chairman: The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) is perfectly correct about page 416 of "Erskine May", but it must be read in conjunction with page 419, where it is stated:
  "Practice in Committee. In a committee of the whole House the restriction upon speaking more than once is altogether removed".
  I do not know where that gets us. I should have thought that honours were even. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Even if they are slightly uneven, the Minister has said that he is prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikado). The Chair is in the hands of the Committee as to which Member should speak next.
  Mr. Jay: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. Would not the most constructive solution be for the Minister to move to report Progress to give you time to read right through "Erskine May"?
  Mr. Powell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Murton. I am sure that the Committee appreciates the generosity of the Minister in being willing to resume his seat. However, unless the Minister had a right at that point to be called, it is not unsatisfactory that the matter should be left as it is, otherwise the custom as quoted by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) may be held to have been superseded by your ruling today, which would create a new precedent? I should hope that it would not be left that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) had the floor by courtesy of the Minister but that he was allowed as of right to resume his speech, subject to any subsequent investigation.
  The Chairman: I entirely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I think that it would be by courtesy of

  857
  the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I beg pardon: it is the other way round. That is what I gathered the right hon. Gentleman said.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Powell: I am sorry, Mr. Murton, if inadvertently I was not clear in what I said. My point was that, although the willingness of the Minister, had he been legitimately called, to resume his seat was a courtesy and is appreciated, in view of the uncertainty, to put it at its lowest, and possibly because of the precedents with which the hon. Member for Sower-by has acquainted the Committee, it would not be satisfactory that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow should continue his speech merely by courtesy if the practice of the House is to give him the right to do so.
  10.30 p.m.
  The Chairman: I misunderstood the, right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I entirely agree with the statement that he has just enunciated. I apologise for not having appreciated the exact point the first time.
  Mr. Mikardo: Since the Minister made an amende honorable, and since I always rejoice of sinners who repent, out of courtesy I shall give way to him. I do so because I am sure that I shall catch your eye later, Mr. Murton, when I shall resume where I left off —although it might take me a while to pick up the thread.
  Mr. Judd: I say again that I sincerely apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). He is a long-standing friend, and no discourtesy was intended. I was so impressed with the significance of his remarks that I was over-keen to deal with some of the pertinent points in his contribution.
  I shall deal with a few of the observations in the elucidating period since the amendment was dealt with. First, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) said—I noted his words carefully—that the clause must be very carefully drafted. Without any qualifications, I can give him the absolute assurance that the clause will be very carefully drafted.
  The hon. Member also remarked upon the dangers of a drift to federalism. I
  858
  must be careful not to bore the Committee with repetition, but I must draw the Committee's attention to what my right hon. Friend said earlier this evening. He referred to the communication sent by the Prime Minister to the General Secretary of the Labour Party in which it was stated categorically that the Government have never accepted that the Community should develop into a federation.
  That was not only said in a letter from the Prime Minister on that occasion but it has been said with the full authority of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and of the Prime Minister in this Chamber. I therefore emphasise and re-emphasise that our concept of the European Economic Community is of a Community in which independent and sovereign States collaborate together for the common good.
  Mr. Marten: I apologise to the Minister, but I was playing a verbal billiards game and trying to get the cannon off the Minister's Bench to my own Front Bench to get those sitting there to say the same thing.
  Mr. Judd: When we were dealing with the business statement for Europe, I assured the hon. Member that I was always willing to bring his views to the attention of his own Front Bench. I am sure that that has happened again this evening.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow warned us about the dangers of piecrusts and the unsatisfactory nature of expecting the Committee to rely simply on ministerial assurances on issues of this magnitude. That is why it is so important that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been able to assure the Committee this evening that we shall bring in a new clause.
  That brings me to the other substantial point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: May I take up the question of the Foreign Secretary's assurance? Is the Minister aware that, when I raised a point of order earlier about the scope of the Bill and the extent to which amendments might be in order, I was told by the Chair that any amendment which sought to affect the present powers of the Assembly or to

  859
  change its future powers would be out of order and beyond the scope of the Bill? In considering the drafting of the new clause, have the Foreign Secretary and his Department taken advice on what would or would not be in order?
  Mr. Judd: This ties in well with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow and with which I was about to deal. My hon. Friend was emphasising that he would find it difficult to resume his seat permanently—he has generously done so temporarily at this juncture—until he had seen the terms of the new clause. He is an old friend, and I say to him in honesty that I find it difficult to see the logic of that case.
  My hon. Friend has emphasised forcefully that the intentions of the Committee should be well understood and adequately reflected in any clause which is introduced to deal with this matter. That is why this debate, which has been continuing for some time now, is so important. It means that the views and anxieties that exist in all parts of the Committee will have the opportunity of being fully reflected in the clause when it is drafted. But my hon. Friend must accept that it is not possible to draft the clause immediately and at the same time take proper account of the views expressed. We must have time in formulating the clause to look into and take account of the points that have been made in the debate.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am not in the slightest bit concerned about the immediate appearance of the new clause. I suspect that I shall not favour it when I see it. I simply wonder whether the Government will be able, in the light of the ruling I was given, to alter the Bill, of which at the moment I rather approve, by the inclusion of the new clause which has been offered tonight.
  Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier this evening that he was confident that that could be done.
  I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow that we wish to take seriously the kind of points that have been made in this debate. We intend to ensure that no rushed or ill-drafted legislation is put before the House
  860
  and that whatever is put before the Committee is fully effective in meeting the kind of problems that have been outlined this evening.
  Mr. Mikardo: No one is talking about rushing. Furthermore, I did not say, as my hon. Friend suggested, that I could not sit down until I had seen the clause. I said that the Committee could not be expected to come to a conclusion on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill". I said also that we should not seek to finalise our view on the matter this evening but that at some appropriate stage this evening or tomorrow morning the Minister should move to report Progress. We have been told that there are no proceedings on the Bill next week. Therefore, we shall come to this Bill again in the week after next. That gives the Foreign Secretary 10 days in which to table the new clause. That is not much of a rush, is it?
  Mr. Judd: In drafting the new clause we are anxious to take fully into account in a considered and appropriate way the kind of observations that have been made tonight. My other point—I think it is most significant in this context—is that there will, of course, be a full opportunity to debate the clause when it is put before the Committee. There is no question, therefore, of the Committee being asked to buy a pig in a poke in this respect, because the Committee will be considering specific wording which is formally before it. I imagine that we shall have a very interesting and a very searching debate on that occasion.
  Mr. Powell: Will the Minister, however, not least for his own sake, address himself to the point made by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)? I think that the reference of the Foreign Secretary to his confidence that the thing could be done was a reference to the possibility of putting the intention into the drafting of a clause and not to the possibility of a clause on that subject being within the scope of the Bill.
  I do not know whether the Minister was present this afternoon during the long proceedings on the scope of the Bill, but in the course of that the Chair ruled that an amendment dealing with the powers of the Assembly would not be within the

  861
  scope of the Bill unless, like the amendment which was disposed of earlier, it was precisely related to the purposes of the Bill. It would therefore appear to be necessary, if the intention is to be carried out, that the clause should not only be so drafted as to give the assurance necessary but to give it in the context of elections to the European Assembly.
  Mr. Judd: By definition, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it will not be possible to introduce a clause unless it is in the context of the Bill and, therefore, within the rules of order and procedure of the House. My right hon. Friend has made it plain that he believes that this can be done. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend did not give such an undertaking in any light-hearted sense. He is a man who weighs his words very carefully, and he will have considered the full implications of the statement which he made to the Committee this afternoon.
  Mr. Dykes: Will the Minister crystallise again what he has just said, for the satisfaction and clarity of the Committee? Will he say that any new clause which comes forward over that period will be absolutely within the scope of the Bill, as has already been explained and agreed in the earlier discussion in the Committee?
  Mr. Judd: I have just explained—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman heard it—that it would not be possible to introduce an amendment which was not within the scope of the Bill, and, therefore, the new clause will by definition be within that scope. We have had a good innings on this and I must proceed.
  This brings me to the interesting constitutional observations by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow on the difference of status between those resident within French overseas territories and those resident within British colonies. I am sure my hon. Friend would recognise that, while he may have underlined what he may regard as an unsatisfactory position in terms of their general constitutional and political rights, this difference is intimately related to the difference which exists between the people of the remaining colonies of the United Kingdom and the United King-
  862
  dom itself, and those which are operative between residents of French overseas territories and France itself, where on many occasions there are representatives in the French Assembly representing their interests.
  I turn next to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), whose consistent and honourable position on this whole issue is second to none and whose persistence I am sure we all admire. He made one observation which interested me considerably. He asked what our view would be if a constituent were to consult us about a problem which existed within the European Community and we felt that we had no option but to refer him to a Member of the European Assembly who would have limited powers. I do not want in any way to get out of order at this juncture, but it seems to me that this raises interesting questions about the kind of electoral system we have and which we shall be debating later.
  I think that the point which has to be emphasised and re-emphasised is that the rôle of the European Assembly in no way resembles the rôle of our Parliament or, indeed, of any other Assembly in any of the member States of the Community.
  Therefore, I believe that there is a good argument for emphasising this point by demonstrating, in the system of election that is employed, that this is a completely different function and that it is not a representative function for handling legislation in the usual way.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend is mistaken about the point that I was trying to make and made rather badly at the time. The assurance given by the Foreign Secretary—perhaps my hon. Friend would not be so confident if he had been here during the earlier part of our proceedings —was that he would introduce a clause which would prevent the legislative power of the Assembly trenching upon that of the House of Commons. My point was that, because the Assembly already has the power of consultation on legislation which is directly applied to this country and the House has not, the mere fact of election would trench on the ability of hon. Members to protect their constituents. Therefore, that must come within the criteria laid down by the Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. Judd: We must not stray into this area, which will be debated in later proceedings on the Bill. However, one way of emphasising the different role and of making it plain that this is in no way a restriction of the legislative rôle of this Parliament would be to have a different kind of electoral system.
  I fully understand the logic of those who want nothing to do with the European Assembly and are therefore against the concept of any direct elections. They have adopted a consistent position, and one can understand the logic within it even if one does not agree with it. However, I put it to my hon. Friend—indeed, I recall making this point in a debate on this subject earlier this year—that, once we have a clearly separately elected body fulfilling this function of the Assembly, the eyes of every elected Assembly throughout the Community will be focused on it as never before. In that sense, the Assembly will be watched intimately to make sure that it in no way advances its powers beyond those already established. I believe that that will be the position. But with the addition of the clause that has been promised to make the point clear, I believe that we shall have a double safeguard.
  Mr. Budgen: Is the Minister saying that he would be in favour of some system which made it obligatory for those who sit in the European Assembly also to sit here so that, if they say something in Europe of which we disapprove, we may have the opportunity of discussing it with them?
  Mr. Judd: I have already made this point very clear. The point that we want to register—it will be underlined by the whole concept of the new clause outlined by my right hon. Friend this afternoon—is that we see the Assembly with strictly defined powers. We are asking the Committee not to buy a pig in a poke —that is the expression that I used earlier—but to vote for something that is clearly defined. We shall have an even more clear-cut situation, because we shall have a separate body of people fulfilling this limited function under detailed scrutiny by all the Members of the various national Assemblies throughout the Community.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a fundamental
  864
  Test (Mr. Gould), between a clause which distinction, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, refers to encroachment on the rights of this place and extension of the powers of the European Assembly? My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not give a satisfactory answer to that question. We are concerned about an extension of the powers of the European Assembly. In my view, the Assembly has already encroached on the powers of this place, and it is a subjective matter of judgment as to when that happened.
  Mr. Judd: It is interesting that my hon. Friend has made that point because in many ways he has underlined the point that I have just made. It is arguable that there have been qualitative changes in recent months and years within the role of the European Assembly. But that has happened in the context of indirect representation where the whole issue has been confused and the edges have been blurred. I genuinely believe that it will be more difficult for that kind of thing to happen when it is seen as a completely separate body with the eyes of national Assemblies upon it.
  I make one other point with regard to the anxieties of my hon Friends who are concerned about encroachment on the rights of the House, and the encroachment that may already have occurred. We should remember that it has been clearly stated by the Prime Minister in the letter from which I quoted, and it has been said in this House on other occasions as well, that we are determined to see effective action taken to improve the powers of scrutiny and accountability of this Assembly. That is another priority which we must see in company with the objective that we have just spelled out.
  This has been a helpful debate. It has enabled us to understand much more fully the anxieties and doubts which exist in the Committee. But I submit that the clause is by definition an essential part of the Bill and I therefore trust that the Committee will fully endorse it.
  Mr. Jay: The Minister has made a very odd speech in a number of ways. At one point he warned us against rushing into ill-drafted and rashly composed amendments to the Bill. That is exactly the reverse of what my hon. Friends and I have been doing.

  865
  About an hour ago I attempted to move to report Progress in order that we should avoid ill-judged and ill-drafted amendments. I put the arguments to your predecessor, Mr. Murton, but he was not quite as sympathetic to them as I expected. I put the argument that it would surely be better to give the Committee time to consider re-drafting some of the amendments which earlier today you found were not entirely in order and to do that before we had finished with Clause 1.
  As a result of that argument's not being accepted, and as a result of the Government's attempt to rush on the "clause stand part" debate, we have been deprived of that opportunity. Those amendments are now not as well drafted as we would have wished. I find it extraordinary that the Minister should proclaim that he is trying to avoid the Bill and the amendments thereto being rushed and ill-drafted.
  Secondly, the Minister protested that he agrees with nearly everyone else in the Chamber that it is not desirable to turn the EEC into a federal union. He also assured us that he did not wish to see the powers of the Assembly increased. But if that was true, why was he not willing to accept the amendment that we moved earlier?
  The Government's refusal to accept that amendment, which would have secured precisely the objectives which the Minister says are his objectives, has aroused great suspicion about the Government's intentions, a suspicion which many of us did not feel earlier in the debate. The whole of the Minister's speech was an argument in favour of that earlier amendment. Since that is so, why on earth did the Government refuse to accept that amendment and recruit the pay-roll vote, or some element of it, into the Lobby against it?
  Thirdly, some hon. Members opposite —I do not know for what reason—threw doubt on the proposed new clause of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the ground that it might be out of order. If there is any danger of that, surely this would have been an argument for accepting our amendment. Since you, Mr. Murton, ruled that the amendment was in order, it is perfectly clear that the
  866
  amendment must have been within the scope of the Bill, within the Long Title, and in accordance with "Erskine May" from beginning to end. Here was an amendment that achieved what the Minister wished to achieve. It was well within the scope of the Bill, yet the Government asked us to reject it. I think that that requires an explanation.
  I have a further question about the exclusion of some United Kingdom colonies while some French territories overseas are being included in the EEC. As I understand it, there are French territories in the Bahamas which are regarded as part of France for EEC purposes and which therefore qualify for representation in some form in this Assembly. If this is the case and these areas outside Europe are to be regarded as EEC territory, do they constitute EEC territory for the purposes of the common fisheries policy? Is any part of the ocean within 200 miles of Martinique to be regarded as part of the EEC's fisheries ocean in which United Kingdom fishermen are entitled to have some share? It seems that these French territories are part of the EEC. Is this so? Will the Minister clear this up, because there is some doubt in hon. Members' minds.
  Mr. Body: The Minister of State tried to help the House in his explanation, as did the Foreign Secretary earlier. The fears we have are not about the formal transfer of power from this House to the European Parliament. That is not realistic without this House being well and truly alerted, especially as there are a growing number of hon. Members sensitive about the subject—far more so than when the European Communities Act was passed in 1972.
  The concern of some of us is about a transfer of power from the Council of Ministers to the European Parliament. We must recognise that in the European Communities Act this House transferred fiscal and executive powers to the Council of Ministers. I am concerned, and so are others, that there will be a move to release the Council of Ministers from certain of these powers and that they will be vested instead in the European Parliament.
  The fiscal powers may prove more important. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)

  867
  said earlier, there is no doubt that the European Parliament will seek to enlarge its powers by widening the scope of the European budget. He quoted the comments by some Members of the European Parliament who sit here. One of our colleagues said that there was nothing wrong with the common agricultural policy, or the fact that millions were spent on it and that the real wrong was in the regional, industrial and social policies, where not enough money was being spent. He said that once as much was spent on these policies as on the CAP, there would be less criticism of the CAP. He then argued for a very much larger European budget. That will be possible without any transfer of power from this House to the European Parliament.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Gould: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the difficulty about reducing the proportion of the Community's budget spent on agriculture will be even greater when the absolute sum spent on agriculture increases substantially as the consequence of enlargement? If other forms of expenditure are to loom larger in the budget, the absolute increase in those sums will be astronomical.
  Mr. Body: Yes, it is a terrifying prospect for those who have to buy food in this country. The greater part of the Community's budget in future will come from import levies. It is true that a large part now comes from external tariffs. Some of us who originally advocated entry into the Common Market hoped that the EEC would have a liberalising effect on world trade, but it has not.
  Furthermore, it is apparent that it is becoming more and more protectionist. Hong Kong and other developing countries recognise how fiercely protectionist the EEC is becoming. It may be that a common external tariff will be raised on some commodities in future, and the other element to be considered is VAT. However, the financing of the Community budget must come from import levies. It is not recognised enough by our people how oppressive those levies already are.
  Mr. Ron Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that in my constituency in the port of Avonmouth last week a cargo of corn arrived from Europe?
  868
  It was unloaded on one day by the dockers, and the very next day it was reloaded and sent back to a different part of the EEC. The shippers made a cool £20 per ton on that cargo under the ludicrous system of levies. This is a time at which dockers and others are being forced to abide by a 10 per cent. rule, and it is obscene that such profits can be made because of this lunatic economic system.
  Mr. Body: There are many examples of how that can be done. I believe the Irish can tell many a story of how much money can be made across the border with lorry-loads of pigs.
  But what is not given sufficient publicity is the effect of these import levies on food prices. Those levies are to be increased on 1st January. From that time lamb from New Zealand will be taxed at a rate of 20 per cent. It will cost even more by the time extra capital needed to finance that operation will put the price of that lamb up by 30 per cent. A wide range of foodstuffs is subjected to these levies and they are decided by the Council of Ministers. It is that body and nobody else that decides. Wheat must be taxed at £33 per ton before it comes into this country, and that causes wheat to be priced at £90 a ton. It would certainly be very much less but for the levy.
  In considering the clause, we must have regard to the transfer of fiscal power which will move from the Council of Ministers to the European Parliament. If the European Parliament extends those powers it will do so by extending its policy, and legislation will be required in the Council of Ministers or here. That can be done only by spending more money—in the way that Members of the European Parliament almost unanimously wish to do.
  The other concern to which I wish to draw attention is the transfer of more legislative power than already takes place under the European Communities Act. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who is present and who played a notable part in that legislation, will confirm that under Section 2 the House surrendered a great deal of its legislative power to the Council of Ministers. We know that under Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome the Council

  869
  of Ministers has power to pass regulations on a wide range of subjects and totally to bypass this House.
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: What the hon. Gentleman says is becoming increasingly true in, for example, tax harmonisation. In January tax on tobacco is to be harmonised and that will greatly affect the sales of cigarettes in this country. Plain cigarettes will become cheaper, because the tax will be based on production costs rather than, as at present, the weight of tobacco in a cigarette. As a result, tipped cigarettes are likely to go up in price, yet there has been a health drive to try to persuade people in the interests of safety to go for the low-tar, tipped cigarettes.
  Because of interference from the Commission in tax harmonisation, the drive towards protecting people's health—rightly undertaken by the DHSS—could be reserved by a decision over which we have no power. It is disgraceful that the health of our people is being put at unnecessary risk. It would not have happened if we had not joined the EEC.
  Mr. Body: It is worse than that, because the regulation to which the hon. Gentleman refers was passed before 1972 and a publication produced in 1971 warned tobacco companies and the public of the consequences of the regulation. The tobacco companies, which are squealing about it now, shrugged their shoulders and did nothing about it. They left it to the Government to negotiate a derogation. Of course, no derogation was negotiated and the regulation is now likely to be binding on us. There is little we can do about it under Article 189.
  There are numerous other examples. One which surprised hon. Members was the directive on the protection of birds. One of my hon. Friends made a sensible contribution to the debate on that directive last week, saying that he thought that the Common Market was something to do with the economy and did not realise that the protection of birds could be brought into its embrace. But, of course, anything can be brought within that embrace, and the protection of birds directive proved it.
  There is a risk that the Council of Ministers will hand over its executive
  BER 1977 Elections Bill
  870
  function to the European Parliament. We know that this is the wish of many members of the Commission, including Mr. Roy Jenkins, who has expressed that view clearly. We know that the Parliament rightly already plays a major part in consulting the Commission before any draft regulation comes before the Council of Ministers. It is a small and easy step from there, once the Parliament is directly elected, to apply pressure on the Council to surrender its influence. This House will then lose its influence over that legislation. At least we can have some influence over the Council of Ministers.
  We have no power but at least we can approach Ministers attending the Council. We see them here and we can question them when they report to the House. As a result of the work of the Scrutiny Committee, we have debates on draft regulations, as we did the other night on the common fisheries policy. I hope that, as a result of that debate, we have strengthened the arm of the Minister of Agriculture, if it needed strengthening, and enabled him to take a firm stand on behalf of our fishermen.
  In other informal ways we are able to influence Ministers attending the Council of Ministers. Once that function has passed from the Council of Ministers to the Assembly, once the European Parliament claims democratic respectability, this House will lose its indirect influence and impact upon Ministers.
  Mr. Marten: My hon. Friend was referring earlier to the regional councils. Is he aware of the remark by Herr Apfel, talking about monetary union in the Community, when he said that Germany could not agree to a bigger and more redistributive EEC budget as long as countries such as Britain opposed political integration? This is precisely what this Parliament is opposing. Therefore, it is hardly likely that there will be a redistributive flow of funds.
  Mr. Body: My hon. Friend is right. Gradually he is gaining converts.
  Mr. Crouch: Not one. More speeches like this and my hon. Friend will lose support.
  Mr. Body: I listened attentively to what my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) had to say earlier.
  Mr. Crouch: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Body: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's confirmation that I had not misunderstood him. He does not appreciate what many of us have been saying.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  I think that the correct words are that we have had an interesting discussion. The Government have won a vote on the point on which the Prime Minister wrote to the General Secretary of the Labour Party stating his general intent about what this House should do concerning the powers of this House with regard to the Assembly. We shall return to that later.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  AGRICULTURE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  That the draft Agriculture Products Processing and Marketing (Improvement Grant) Regulations 1977, which were laid before this House on 10th November, be approved. [Mr. Harper.]
  Question agreed to.

  CHURCH HILL HOUSE HOSPITAL, BRACKNELL
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. William van Straubenzee: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and particularly to Mr. Speaker for allowing me the opportunity to raise a matter which is of some considerable anxiety and concern to my constituents, and I am very much obliged to the Minister responsible for the disabled for his courtesy in being here at this hour to answer the debate. I know that he has the same concern for those who are caring for the mentally-handicapped as has any other Member of this House.
  The hospital of which I speak is the Church Hill House Hospital at Bracknell in Berkshire. All the 270 patients in that hospital are mentally handicapped. They are all, as the saying goes, "informal" patients—I use the word in inverted commas. That is to say, none is admitted under the Mental Health Act, which means that none of them is being detained. There are 146 nursing staff who are concerned with their care.
  It is not an unusual story. The basic buildings of this hospital were originally the workhouse of the area, and under successive Governments, and with care and expenditure over many years, the buildings have been greatly improved, enlarged and added to. On the several occasions when I have had the privilege to visit the hospital, like everyone else I have been very much impressed by the atmosphere. But the atmosphere is soured at the moment. The matter starts with a letter sent to the Minister by the Wokingham Constituency Labour Party, undated, but received on 1st November. It makes very serious charges indeed about the conduct of the hospital.
  I do not take time to read the letter in full, but I will read an extract. It was sent by the secretary of the constituency Labour Party. It said:
  "…we have reason to believe that there is strong evidence of victimisation of and discrimination against trade union members; that there have been cases of the fabrication of documents for the purposes of discrimination and fraud; and that there have been incidents

  873
  of violence involving both staff and patients at Church Hill House hospital."
  These are very serious charges, and they hang over my constituents who are on the staff of the hospital and are the cause of my raising this matter.
  The matter arose basically, as the letter makes clear, from an affiliated branch of the National Union of Public Employees. I understand that the chairman of the East Berkshire branch is a Mrs. Warwick, sometimes described as a nurse but in fact a nursing assistant, which is a different appointment. My first question, therefore, is whether it is a fact, as I believe to be the case, that Mrs. Warwick has recently been the subject of a disciplinary hearing carried out under the disciplinary procedures of the Berkshire Area Health Authority. I ask that question because it seems to me to be relevant when we come to judge the weight of the evidence which she seeks to put before us.
  I have quoted from the letter from the constituency Labour Party. The constituency Labour candidate has wholly and absolutely associated himself with the charges in the letter. Quite rightly, the Minister of State, to whom I am also grateful, writing to the Labour Party on 16th November, said this:
  "It is imperative that full and specific details of all allegations and incidents you refer to in your letter should be made available at once to the Berkshire Area Health Authority, so that they can carry out full investigations into them. I hope that you and the NUPE Branch will put all the information you have in the hands of the Area Health Authority."
  I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that that letter is now 16 days old. It is 16 days since the letter was despatched.
  My second question is this. Have any details of allegations and incidents—full and specific details, to use the Minister of State's phrase—as at today's date, to the Minister's knowledge, been supplied either to the Department or to the area health authority? I repeat that it was 16 days ago.
  The message that should go out from this debate, if the Minister tells us that so far no details have been supplied, is "substantiate or withdraw"—either substantiate these very grave allegation or withdraw them. If they are not substantiated or if the complaints prove to be so trivial as not to justify the allegations,
  874
  then the candidate concerned will stand discredited.
  But I do not make my major case to be that. I have in front of me the full-scale spread of the Wokingham Times of 3rd November. The Wokingham Times is a member of the Thomson Group of newspapers. It spreads across the whole front page,
  "Why this hospital must be probed".
  I quote from the leader, known in that newspaper as "Adam McKinlay's Column":
  "All is not well at Church Hill House Hospital for the mentally handicapped in Bracknell, and there is urgent need for a public inquiry. For weeks a team of reporters from this office has been investigating allegations of violence and other serious acts concerning patients and nursing staff. Their findings worry me."
  Further on it says,
  "the main issue…is the allegations of acts of violence of a most unpleasant nature against mentally handicapped patients."
  They are very serious charges indeed to be made in a public newspaper, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree.
  A little later, the editor writes,
  "I have gone through every line of the investigation carried out by my team of reporters and if only one of the serious allegations of acts of violence against the patients is true, it is one to many. This is no time for mincing words. I have read all the allegations which were brought to Alan Furley and I share his anxiety."
  He has read all the allegations, so they must exist; they have been read.
  I ask my third question of the Minister. Has there been any contribution from the editor of this newspaper? Has he made statements available to the area health authority or to the Minister's Department? Has any of this evidence been made available?
  I say with some reluctance that the truth about this newspaper is that it is a local newspaper dominated by its editor, and, in turn, he is a man with a passion for self-advertisement. Journalistically, he is without principle. He cares only for the circulation of his newspaper and his own ego. Perhaps I may give a small example. It would, I think, be a surprise to the readers of The Times of London if Mr. William Rees-Mogg's photograph—pleasant as it is—were to appear regularly on the front page of that newspaper. But that is what regularly happens with

  875
  this paper. For example, in the issues both of 20th October and of 17th November there was the editor's photograph on the front page.
  I believe that this editor has used his position as editor to bring maximum discredit upon the entire staff of this hospital who are devotedly caring for the mentally handicapped, without having made public, unless we hear to the contrary tonight, to the Minister or to the AHA a shred of evidence in support of his cruel allegations.
  Fourthly, I do not know whether the Minister will feel able to do this, but I ask him to warn hospitals in the immediate area of what might happen in the columns of the newspapers in the same way as it has in respect of Church Hill House. For example, the editor was recently a patient at Heatherwood Hospital. He wrote honeyed words about his treatment there from the nurses, but heaven knows what revelations he might yet be prepared to make and write leaders about.
  I believe that the borderline between restraint and ill-treatment is a very thin one. There may well be guidelines, but they cannot cover all situations. In the care of the mentally handicapped there can be violent aggression by one patient leading to some use of physical force and restraint, but others caring for such a patient may do it by only a word or a gesture, and restraint may sometimes be necessary by an experienced nurse who has seen danger signals.
  I sum up my views in this way. I want it to be clearly understood—and I hope that the Minister will understand—that I think that any person who abuses his care of the mentally handicapped should ruthlessly be the subject of inquiry. I want the Minister to appreciate, as I am sure he does, that nothing that I am saying tonight would seek to sweep under the carpet matters which should be the subject of inquiry.
  I certainly assert firmly, even in regard to a profession which I respect greatly and which is doing work that I think is demanding and difficult, that any case of violence or any alleged case of violence should certainly be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Mine tonight is not a case of trying to whitewash. What I am saying to the Minister
  876
  is this. I think there is a responsibility, too, upon those who make these accusations. The responsibility is not to make the accusations publicly as was done in this case—that has endangered everybody's reputation and cast a cloud over the whole of the hospital and all the work within it—until investigations have been carried out privately.
  For example, I assert firmly that if proper allegations, substantiated allegations, had been brought to me, as to any other hon. Member I feel sure, I should certainly have done all I could to have them very thoroughly investigated first.
  The alternative is not to make public allegations unless one is simultaneously prepared to produce the evidence on which those public allegations are based. Those seem to me to be the two criteria which it is reasonable to ask of anyone who is making such grave accusations as this. For the truth is that in a situation like this the staff of a hospital—all of them, nursing, medical, administrative—against whom such allegations as these have been made have no redress once the allegations are made public. They must all suffer the stigma of an unproven allegation. They have no redress, with one exception. That exception is being demonstrated tonight.
  Not only is Mr. Speaker the guardian of the rights of minorities in this House, for which we are very grateful, but he is the guardian of the rights of minorities among those whom we represent here. It was he who enabled me to raise this matter tonight with the Minister, and enabled him, as I trust, with due regard to his overall responsibilities for all the things that I have said, if he feels so inclined, to come to the defence of the staff whose predicament I have raised.
  11.30 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): The hon. Member for Woking-ham (Mr. van Straubenzee) has brought before the House a matter of very considerable importance to people living in and around his constituency. I am grateful for the manner of his speech. He dealt with Press allegations which have not been supported by facts. They are allegations that could seriously undermine public confidence in an important service for mentally handicapped patients

  877
  and the highly skilled staff who look after them. I welcome the opportunity provided by the hon. Gentleman to show that the allegations have not been supported by any statements of fact. I shall also seek to answer the pointed questions he has posed and comment on recent events which gave rise to this debate.
  Church Hill House Hospital is near Bracknell, and has about 270 beds for mentally handicapped patients. Over the years, it has rightly earned a good reputation for the services it provides. The hospital is held in high regard locally, where many families rely on it for support which is essential to them in the care of their mentally handicapped relatives.
  Early in November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services was asked by the Wokingham constituency Labour Party to set up an independent inquiry into allegations about Church Hill House Hospital. He was told that the executive committee had received representations from an affiliated branch of the National Union of Public Employees, which led it to believe that there was evidence of victimisation of, and discrimination against, trade union employees at the hospital, of fraud, and of violence involving both patients and staff. In view of the representations the constituency Labour Party had received it was, of course, both understandable and proper for it to raise the matter with my Department.
  Moreover, when suggestions of misconduct of this kind are made there is a recognised procedure for dealing with them. In keeping with this procedure, my hon. Friend the Minister of State replied to the Secretary of the Woking-ham constituency Labour Party stressing that it was
  "imperative that full and specific details of all allegations and incidents"
  should be made available to the area health authority at once so that the authority could carry out a full investigation into them. My hon. Friend asked that any information in the hands either of the local party or the NUPE branch concerned should be passed to the AHA. In the meantime, the Press carried reports of the allegations that were being made. These reports, however, con-
  878
  tained no specific factual information upon which investigations could be based.
  The Berkshire Area Health Authority is responsible for provision of services at Church Hill House Hospital. It is concerned that the hospital should be managed efficiently and well, and that patients should receive the highest possible standards of care. It is its policy to investigate complaints and allegations about management and about services to patients, both thoroughly and impartially, and also to take any necessary action to ensure that these objectives are met. The authority was, therefore, understandably very concerned about the allegations that were being made about the hospital. At the same time, it was rightly anxious that it should have the full facts so that it could start investigations without any delay. But I understand that it has not received any facts supporting the general allegations that have been made.
  Clearly, the area health authority cannot carry out any meaningful investigation without some factual information. Its officers have made wide-reaching inquiries within the hospital, but I am told that they have discovered nothing to indicate that the allegaions are in any way warranted.
  The authority is, of course, in an invidious position. The public will expect of it that it either refutes the allegations or shows what action it has taken to put right what it has found to be wrong. Yet its first duty is to investigate, and it cannot do this without factual information in support of the allegations. This it has not been given. As a responsible body, it must exercise caution before issuing any public statement implying that it has come to final conclusions about the management of the hospital and services to patients while there remains any possibility of someone coming forward with hard facts that can be investigated.
  The rumours and allegations about Church Hill House Hospital have had a serious impact on morale among the staff there. I am told that at all levels they find themselves under a cloud of suspicion. The staff have emphasised to the area health authority their confidence that the care they give their patients will stand up to examination by anyone wishing to go to the hospital and look

  879
  at their work in detail. Naturally they want to have the allegations about the hospital refuted. They are impatient for those responsible for the Press allegations to come forward with factual statements which can be properly investigated.
  It is not surprising that this affair should have had its effect on morale in the hospital. As the House well appreciates, good morale is essential to good services to hospital patients. If the allegations that we have seen in the Press have been made without just cause, the burden of responsibility on those who made them is a heavy one indeed.
  The allegations have also had their impact on public confidence in the hospital. There have been requests for full inquiries. The hon. Member for Woking-ham has written to my hon. Friend expressing his appreciation of the dedicated and devoted work of the staff at Church Hill House Hospital. Moreover, he is by no means alone in having done so. The area health authority has received communications from a great many people, including relatives of patients and the hospital's League of Friends, expressing their confidence in the staff and in the care they give their patients.
  I am sure that all this is very encouraging to the staff at the hospital. While they feel under attack, they must have found some solace in the knowledge that they have the admiration and trust of so many people who are qualified by their experience of the hospital to express an informed opinion. I think it important that the people of Berkshire should know that many who have intimate knowledge and experience of the hospital just do not believe that the allegations have any substance.
  In his speech, the hon. Member asked some specific questions. I should now like to deal with them. One of his questions was whether the area health authority has yet received statements of facts in support of the allegations. The short answer is "No". From no source has the authority received any statement of fact throwing light on the allegations and which might make detailed investigation possible. For my part, I sincerely hope that, if anyone has any information that should be made available to the area health authority, he will make it available to the authority without delay. Mis-
  880
  management, fraud and ill-treatment of patients are gravely serious matters which must be dealt with responsibly. These are not words to be bandied about lightly and without just cause. The hon. Member and his constituents have my word that I shall have any factual information very rigorously examined.
  This brings me to the hon. Member's suggestion that the area health authority should be cautious in its dealings with the Press. I shall certainly draw the authority's attention to what he said. I am, of course, fully conscious of the very important rôle played by the Press in drawing attention to matters of public concern. The hon. Gentleman's point to me is that this affair highlights the need for the Press to check out stories as far as possible before going to print on matters which are certain to give rise to public disquiet. Credibility is the journalist's stock-in-trade, and credibility suffers irreparable harm when readers are asked to give credence to reports of smoke without showing at least some clear evidence of fire.
  The hon. Member also referred to disciplinary proceedings held at the hospital recently. I understand that in October there was a disciplinary inquiry at the hospital involving an unqualified nursing assistant, and that she was subsequently given a formal warning about her conduct. I understand that this was the employee referred to in the first of the questions put by the hon. Member.
  It has been suggested that this nursing assistant and other members of the staff have been subjected to victimisation. The area health authority would not accept that the disciplinary action could be regarded in any way as victimisation. It has not, however, been given specific details of alleged acts of victimisation but, as in the case of the other allegations which have been made about the hospital, it is prepared to investigate, given the facts.
  It is a matter for deep regret that those who have made allegations have not come forward with facts for the area health authority to investigate. If there are no facts available, I find it a cause for particular concern that the allegations were made in the first place. Without factual support the allegations can be regarded as nothing more than rumours.

  881
  While I do not doubt that the people involved passed on the rumours that they had heard in good faith, this whole affair seems to emphasise the very great dangers of rumour-mongering. As I have said, real harm has been done to the morale of a group of people who have the often very demanding job of looking after mentally handicapped people.
  I am sure that their dedication to the needs of their patients is fully recognised by the area health authority and by the relatives of the handicapped people in their care. That knowledge at least should hearten the staff. I cannot stress strongly enough the importance I attach to the need for anyone who has factual information bearing on the general allegations that have been made to come forward so that a thorough investigation can be carried out.
  What it comes down to is this. It is all very well to demand an inquiry. We are very ready to investigate any specific allegations of improper behaviour. But I must again emphasis that we must first know what the allegations are before we can invesigate them.
  I should like now to pay tribute to the responsibility with which the area health authority has acted. It has made it clear that it will thoroughly investigate any facts laid before it. Its officers have made inquiries to discover anything that might be going wrong in the hospital, but this has brought nothing untoward to light. It has also invited the police to carry out their own investigations and I understand that these are still continuing.
  It is not possible for me to say whether the police inquiries have led or may lead to any action in the courts: I can go no
  882
  further than to say that the area health authority has heard nothing so far that leads it to believe that formal police proceedings are likely. The area health authority has made it clear by its actions that it exercises proper vigilance in managing services at the hospital.
  I cannot let this opportunity pass without also paying tribute to the men and women who provide the health services for mentally handicapped people. They are dedicated people who undertake a difficult task and do their work to a very high standard. I endorse entirely what the hon. Member said about the dedication of people who spend their lives helping the mentally handicapped.
  Development and enhancement of services for the mentally handicapped is one of the Government's top priorities in the health services. We want to ensure that mentally handicapped people have a satisfying environment, as far as possible in the general community, that they have education, stimulation and employment so as to develop and exercise all the skills they can acquire so that they can achieve their full potential in society. In developing services in this way we rely heavily on the experience and expertise of the existing staff, who can show what success their past efforts have brought in these directions.
  I emphasise the importance of what was said—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at fourteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

  PARIS
  PARIS
  DONCASTER
  DONCASTER
  BINBROOK
  BINBROOK
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  LUXEMBOURG
  LUXEMBOURG
  TUC
  TUC
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  HAYWARDS HEATH
  HAYWARDS HEATH
  ARMED FORCES (FIRE- FIGHTING EQUIPMENT)
  ARMED FORCES (FIRE- FIGHTING EQUIPMENT)
  GOSPORT
  GOSPORT
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING)
  BURTON ON TRENT
  BURTON ON TRENT
  ROME
  ROME
  CAMBRIDGE
  CAMBRIDGE
  TYNESIDE
  TYNESIDE
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
  GREAT WYRLEY
  GREAT WYRLEY
  CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  CHILD MINDING
  CHILD MINDING
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Grants and Loans
  Grants and Loans
  United Nations University
  United Nations University
CIVIL SERVICE
  Public Services (Custody of Property)
  Public Services (Custody of Property)
  Ministerial Travel Expenses
  Ministerial Travel Expenses
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Ministerial Subsistence Allowances
  Ministerial Subsistence Allowances
  Public Appointments Unit
  Public Appointments Unit
  Government Car Service
  Government Car Service
  Ministerial Appointments
  Ministerial Appointments
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  El Salvador
  El Salvador
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  "Scotland in Europe" (Secretary of State's Speech)
  "Scotland in Europe" (Secretary of State's Speech)
  CROSSMAN DIARIES
  CROSSMAN DIARIES
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Tavistock Comprehensive School
  Tavistock Comprehensive School
  Schools (Costs)
  Schools (Costs)
  Institute of Hearing Research
  Institute of Hearing Research
ENERGY
  Electricity (Token Meters)
  Electricity (Token Meters)
  Fuel Bills
  Fuel Bills
  Solar Heating
  Solar Heating
  Oil Exports
  Oil Exports
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Power
  Nuclear Power
  Oil Industry Technology
  Oil Industry Technology
  Oil Production
  Oil Production
  Hydrocarbons
  Hydrocarbons
SOCIAL SERVICES
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
TRANSPORT
  Bypasses
  Bypasses
  M3 (Popham-Compton)
  M3 (Popham-Compton)
  Road Construction (Midlands)
  Road Construction (Midlands)
  Motor Coaches
  Motor Coaches
  Motor Rallies
  Motor Rallies
  A259 (Route Study)
  A259 (Route Study)
  Road Accidents (Defective Brakes)
  Road Accidents (Defective Brakes)
  Motor Cars (Brakes)
  Motor Cars (Brakes)
  Motor Vehicles (Registration)
  Motor Vehicles (Registration)
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigrants (New Commonwealth and Pakistan)
  Immigrants (New Commonwealth and Pakistan)
  Entry Refusals
  Entry Refusals
  Fire Services (Dispute)
  Fire Services (Dispute)
  Children (Detention)
  Children (Detention)
  Entry Refusal Appeals
  Entry Refusal Appeals
  Prison Service (Pay)
  Prison Service (Pay)
  Mr. Guisseppi Santacroce
  Mr. Guisseppi Santacroce
  Firemen
  Firemen
  Fire Service
  Fire Service
  Child Minding
  Child Minding
  Mr. D. N. Caushash
  Mr. D. N. Caushash
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Latin American Refugees
  Latin American Refugees
  Police (Rent Allowances)
  Police (Rent Allowances)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Pay Settlements
  Pay Settlements
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  Taxation (Queries)
  Taxation (Queries)
  Minimum Lending Rate
  Minimum Lending Rate
  Public Sector Borrowing
  Public Sector Borrowing
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Computers
  Computers
  Inland Revenue Office (Cumbernauld)
  Inland Revenue Office (Cumbernauld)
ENVIRONMENT
  Newham
  Newham
  Empty Housing
  Empty Housing
  Compulsory Purchase Procedures
  Compulsory Purchase Procedures
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  New Towns (Transfer of Assets)
  New Towns (Transfer of Assets)
  Press Conferences
  Press Conferences
  Rent and Rate Arrears
  Rent and Rate Arrears
  Laybys
  Laybys
  Royal Palaces
  Royal Palaces
  Local Government (Councillors' Remuneration)
  Local Government (Councillors' Remuneration)
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Exceptional Needs Payments (Alarm Clock Purchase)
  Exceptional Needs Payments (Alarm Clock Purchase)
  Under-fives
  Under-fives
  Hospitals (Thanet)
  Hospitals (Thanet)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Hospitals (Cheshire)
  Hospitals (Cheshire)
  Kidney Machines
  Kidney Machines
  Widows' Pensions
  Widows' Pensions
  Kidney Transplants
  Kidney Transplants
  Child Minders
  Child Minders
  Oakmere Rehabilitation Centre
  Oakmere Rehabilitation Centre
  Chiropody (Nursing Homes)
  Chiropody (Nursing Homes)
  Hospital Patients (Transport)
  Hospital Patients (Transport)
  Hospital Consultants
  Hospital Consultants
  Children in Care
  Children in Care
  Physiotherapy
  Physiotherapy
  Thefts from Departmental Offices
  Thefts from Departmental Offices
INDUSTRY
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  British Aerospace
  British Aerospace
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  BAC 1–11
  BAC 1–11
  Stainless Steel Hinges
  Stainless Steel Hinges
  British Shipbuilders
  British Shipbuilders
TRADE
  British Airways
  British Airways
  Fishing Vessel (Safety)
  Fishing Vessel (Safety)
  National Film Finance Corporation
  National Film Finance Corporation
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
DEFENCE
  Civilian Employees (Iran)
  Civilian Employees (Iran)
  Mr. J. G. A. Thorn
  Mr. J. G. A. Thorn
  Chile
  Chile
  Terrorist Convictions
  Terrorist Convictions
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Army (Pay)
  Army (Pay)
  Personnel
  Personnel
  Luton (Job Creation Committee)
  Luton (Job Creation Committee)
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Cheshire
  Cheshire
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Ashfield
  Ashfield
  Young Persons (EEC Questionnaire)
  Young Persons (EEC Questionnaire)
  Trade Unions
  Trade Unions
  Trades Union Congress (Grant)
  Trades Union Congress (Grant)
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Timber Trades
  Timber Trades
  Redundancies (Scotland)
  Redundancies (Scotland)
  Norfolk
  Norfolk
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Pay
  Pay
  Toys
  Toys
SCOTLAND
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Tourism
  Tourism
  A9
  A9
  M8
  M8
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Salmon (Drift Netting)
  Salmon (Drift Netting)
  Toll Bridges
  Toll Bridges
  Sheltered Housing
  Sheltered Housing
  Thermal Insulation
  Thermal Insulation
  Housing (Facilities)
  Housing (Facilities)
  Islands Ferries
  Islands Ferries
  Housing (Overcrowding)
  Housing (Overcrowding)
  Hospitals (Building Programme)
  Hospitals (Building Programme)
  Bridges (Firths)
  Bridges (Firths)
  Mental Hospitals
  Mental Hospitals
  North Ayrshire District General Hospital
  North Ayrshire District General Hospital
  Schools (Building Programme)
  Schools (Building Programme)
  Nursery School
  Nursery School
  Swimming Pools and Community Centres
  Swimming Pools and Community Centres
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  Schools (Building Costs)
  Schools (Building Costs)
  Steel Industry (Hunterston)
  Steel Industry (Hunterston)
  Timber
  Timber
  Judges (Political Comments)
  Judges (Political Comments)
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Borstal Inmates (Fines)
  Borstal Inmates (Fines)
  Sheriff Peter Thomson
  Sheriff Peter Thomson
  Hunterston Power Station
  Hunterston Power Station
WALES
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
  Welsh National Water Development Authority
  Welsh National Water Development Authority
  Industrial Investment
  Industrial Investment
  A44
  A44
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Council Houses (Costs)
  Council Houses (Costs)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Extradition (Republic of Ireland)
  Extradition (Republic of Ireland)
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Firearms Certificates
  Firearms Certificates
  Effluent Discharge
  Effluent Discharge
  Drumohoe Sewage Treatment Works
  Drumohoe Sewage Treatment Works
  Caugh Hill Water Treatment Works
  Caugh Hill Water Treatment Works
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Pensioners (Transport)
  Pensioners (Transport)
  Carnmoney Water Treatment Works
  Carnmoney Water Treatment Works
  Education (Grants)
  Education (Grants)
  Belfast Property (Ownership)
  Belfast Property (Ownership)
  Fishing Offences
  Fishing Offences
  Telephones
  Telephones
  Town Planning
  Town Planning
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Butter
  Butter
  Green Pound
  Green Pound
  Milk Marketing Board
  Milk Marketing Board
  Land Use
  Land Use
  Mackerel
  Mackerel
  Horticulture
  Horticulture
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Tariffs
  Tariffs
  Beer (Exports)
  Beer (Exports)
  Agriculture Ministers (Council)
  Agriculture Ministers (Council)
  Beef (Imports)
  Beef (Imports)
  European Community Commissioner Gundelach
  European Community Commissioner Gundelach
  Pigmeat
  Pigmeat
  European Community (Farm Production Programme)
  European Community (Farm Production Programme)
  European Community (Fisheries)
  European Community (Fisheries)
  Plant Health Inspectors
  Plant Health Inspectors
  Sheepmeat
  Sheepmeat
  National Farmers Union
  National Farmers Union
  Pig Production
  Pig Production
  Food Stocks
  Food Stocks
  Azinphos-methyl
  Azinphos-methyl
  Animals (Export for Slaughter)
  Animals (Export for Slaughter)
  Plum Pox
  Plum Pox
  Sows
  Sows
  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Smallholdings
  Smallholdings
  Farmers
  Farmers
  Herring
  Herring
  Food (Unfit for Human Consumption)
  Food (Unfit for Human Consumption)
  Animals (Transport)
  Animals (Transport)
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Trees
  Trees
  Wool Marketing Board
  Wool Marketing Board
  Woodlands
  Woodlands
  Food (Labelling)
  Food (Labelling)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

METRICATION: COST OF ADAPTATION
Lord SHINWELL: 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 to state what expenditure has been provided in seeking to adopt the metrication system.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the only expenditure specifically provided is the cost of the Metrication Board. Since the Board's inception in 1969 the total expenditure, including an estimate for the current year, has been £6.5 million. It is not possible to estimate the total costs and benefits to the country as a whole.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some members of the farming community have refused to adopt the metrication system and that in some parts of the country a process of intimidation is proceeding against many of them? Why should this occur? Further, if £6.5 million has been spent, apart from the expenditure involved in an ancillary and subsidiary fashion, would it not have been better, instead of having this confusion—metrication has not aroused great enthusiasm in the country and certainly not in the farming community—to have used the money in order, for example, to provide a reduction in the cost of married quarters for men in the Services?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am aware of the difficulty to which my noble friend referred in a part of the farming community, but I believe that this whole question should be seen in the perspective of the metrication programme as a whole, which
1352
is proceeding smoothly. In my view it is quite essential that we should go metric because, with one or two minor exceptions, the whole world is metric.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, including the United States.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, it is the cost to us not to go metric, rather than the cost of going metric, that we should have in mind. Of course, £6.5 million could be spent in a variety of ways, but I believe that it is being very well spent in this particular case.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, when my noble friend refers to the whole world accepting metrication, is he aware that the whole world is now in the most crazy situation it has known for three centuries? Why should he indulge in a little boasting about metrication in the context of the situation in which we in this country find ourselves, apart from what is happening in many other parts of the world?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I believe that the difficult world situation has wider causes than the use of the metric system. My noble friend knows that very well. I would remind him that we are not rushing into this question of metrication. Indeed, the first significant step was taken when the United Kingdom joined the Metric Convention in 1884—which I note was the significant year when my noble friend was born. This enables us to look forward to 1984 as an occasion when we can celebrate the hundredth birthday of my noble friend as well as the centenary of our joining the Metric Convention.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I object to this innuendo concerning the manner in which I was born? According to all the records, I was born in a perfectly natural fashion, in strict accordance with the rules.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, metrication was made legitimate in 1884 and I am sure there is no question in relation to my noble friend.
Viscount St. DAVIDS: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that, unpleasant as the process of metrication is, it is better to be "metrified" than "petrified"?

LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS AND MARRIAGE
3.6 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conditions must be satisfied before a prisoner serving a life sentence is allowed to marry.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, except to legitimise a child, a life sentence prisoner would not be allowed to marry until after he has been given a provisional date for his release.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, will the noble Lord provide any justification for that very inhumane treatment of women who want to marry life sentence prisoners? Is he aware, as he must be, that, as far as I know, the last circular issued on this matter—which was not available in the Library up to a few minutes ago—informs us that, in the case of,
"a prisoner serving a life sentence: the application should be referred to P3 or P4 Division, who will consult CS Division".
That leaves a strong presumption that discretion will be exercised at the Home Office. Although I appreciate the noble Lord's interest in this matter, will he agree that it is his own arbitrary fiat and not the law of the Medes and Persians which prevents this discretion being given?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I would not agree with my noble friend that the policy is in any way inhumane. Indeed, until this year the marriage of prisoners was allowed only in a situation where a child would be legitimised. Since then, the situation has been changed and now, broadly, the position is that all prisoners with 12 months to serve, excepting life sentence prisoners, are, in fact, given permission. That is a major change and I am slightly surprised that my noble friend regards the situation as I have described it as inhumane. I do not think it is. There is a difference between life sentence prisoners and others in that as far as those people are concerned there is no right of release
1354
at any specific time. I believe that that puts them in a different category. Once they have a date for release, we are certainly prepared to look at the question.
On the circular, I am certainly prepared to look at its terms because at the moment I do not think that in this particular respect it is altogether adequate.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, will the noble Lord repeat that last sentence because it was not clear to those of us sitting on these Benches?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Certainly, my Lords. I said that my noble friend had drawn the attention of my office to the fact that the current language of the circular does not altogether accurately describe the existing policy as regards life sentence prisoners—it might conceivably raise hopes where none would be justified. That being so, I shall look at the language of the circular as it relates to life sentence prisoners to ensure that it accurately describes the situation that I have put to the House this afternoon.
Baroness SHARPLES: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether there are any women prisoners serving life sentences? He mentioned male prisoners serving life sentences.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I cannot answer that question without notice. I think that there are, indeed, women in this category. Without notice I cannot give the number, but the situation that I have described of course applies to both men and women.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I find it a little difficult to follow my noble friend's statement, but am I right in saying that permission to marry is given to persons who have been given a provisional date for parole? Why then is not a similar permission given to persons serving life sentences who have been given provisional release dates? What is the reason for this discrimination?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I did in fact say, I hope fairly clearly but I shall now repeat it, that where a provisional release date has been given, permission will already be granted.

SERVICEMEN: REMUNERATION AND CONDITIONS
3.10 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will revert to the practice of giving Servicemen free rations and accommodation.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord is referring to the system in force before 1970 under which single Servicemen received part of their remuneration in the form of free rations and accommodation. This was superseded in 1970 by the current arrangements under which Service personnel, like the rest of the community, receive a full salary out of which they pay for food, accommodation and other expenses. There is no intention of reverting to the old system, which was found to have many disadvantages when it was reviewed by the National Board for Prices and Incomes in their 116th report in 1969.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that when the last pay increase came for Servicemen practically all of that—and in some cases more than that—was taken up by increases in the rent and ration allowances? Is he further aware that I can take him to parts of this country—I admit only to parts because it depends on the local situation—where quarters are empty because officers and other ranks have found it cheaper to get accommodation elsewhere? Finally, will he tell the House how many Servicemen are on supplementary benefits, especially among those serving in Northern Ireland whose families are left behind in Germany, and how many elsewhere are having to "moonlight" to make ends meet?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the whole House is aware of the noble Lord's concern in these matters. I cannot give detailed answers on the last two points that he raised when he asked for precise figures on two particular issues. I am aware of the situation which arose
1356
last April when, I think in the Armed Services Review, Servicemen received "an Irishman's rise". But there were Round 2 guildelines relating to the rise in the value of free food and accommodation which, even under the old set-up, would have been offset against the pay supplement in 1969 and before then. We must take a slightly longer view of the situation beyond the present moment.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, quite apart from the merits of the original suggestion, will the noble Lord bear in mind the very general disquiet which is felt about the rate of remuneration and other rewards for Her Majesty's Forces who cannot after all, strike, and do, as a matter of fact, perform services when others are depriving the nation of theirs?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think my noble friends and I, and the whole House, are aware of this. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Shinwell has tabled an Amendment to Wednesday's Motion which in fact covers this point.

LICENSING COMPENSATION FUND
3.13 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made on deciding to whom the proceeds of the Licensing Compensation Fund shall he distributed.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, a further meeting between the Home Office and the Brewers' Society and licensed trade organisations took place in July, which I am pleased to say resulted in agreement in principle on a scheme for the distribution of 50 per cent. of the funds. This scheme will, however, need to be the subject of further consultations within Government and will then have to be discussed with other interested parties, including particularly the compensation authorities. These consultations need to be completed before the Government can decide what proposals to recommend to Parliament.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he not agree, in view of the statement that the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security made the other day about the increased problem of alcoholism in this country, that the sooner more funds can be devoted to the Medical Council on Alcoholism and the National Council, particularly as they are moving under the same roof, the better? Will he do all he can to try to hasten these meetings that are to be held?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords, my right honourable friend is well aware of the need to hasten progress in this matter. It is an important question and we shall certainly do the best we can to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion as soon as possible.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the Medical Council on Alcoholism and the General Council deserve to receive a great deal of money as quickly as possible? I have been involved with one of them for a long time, and we are hard up.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am well aware of that consideration, among others. The situation is that legislation will have to be put before Parliament, and we want to get these consultations concluded as soon as possible, for just the reason that noble Lords have identified.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, these consultations have been taking place ever since the end of the last World War. By this time, should not some definite action be taken not only as regards the 50 per cent. but as regards the full amount which was set aside for charitable purposes? Surely licensed victuallers are perfectly entitled, in consequence of the manner in which it was placed, to complain about the—I do not know the exact word terrible delay that has taken place from the time the money actually became available?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, yes, I think there has undoubtedly been considerable delay in this matter. I can only repeat the point that I have just made to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree; that is, that we are pushing on with this
1358
matter as speedily as possible. It will require legislation. All I can say is that there is no chance of that legislation in the present Session of Parliament. That being so, we want to be in a position where we are able to legislate as soon as possible thereafter.

THE CROWN AGENTS
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies will repeat a Statement on the Crown Agents.
ATHOLL INVESTMENTS (ABERDEEN DEVELOPMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

GUN BARREL PROOF BILL [H.L.]
3.17 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of the Gun Barrel Proof Bill is to amend the Gun Barrel Proof Act 1868 to enable the United Kingdom to accede to the Convention of the Permanent International Commission for the Proof of Small Arms, known for short as the CIP. As this is a technical matter, your Lordships may find it helpful if I explain briefly some of the background. Proofing is the process of testing a gun to ensure, so far as is practicable, it is safe in the hands of the user. The process involves firing through the barrel a considerably heavier charge than the gun is designed for in normal use, thereby setting up pressure and stress on the barrel. Such pressure should, and indeed is intended to, disclose any weaknesses.
Proof in the United Kingdom is the responsibility under Statute of two private companies. It dates back to 1637 when the Worshipful Company of Gun Makers of London was granted its Royal Charter. They are justifiably proud of the fact that theirs is the oldest proof house in the world. The Birmingham Proof House was established in 1813 by Private Act of Parliament. Since that date it has been an offence to sell or to offer for sale an unproofed firearm anywhere in the United Kingdom.

1359
The present law on proof is contained in the Gun Barrel Proof Acts of 1868 and 1950 and in the various Rules of Proof, the most recent dating from 1955. The detailed operations of the two proof houses are governed by the provisions of the 1868 Act, which gave responsibilities for the standard of proof to the Secretary of State for War. These responsibilities were extended by the 1950 Act to cover fees for proof. Sections 129 to 137 of the 1868 Act require that imported small arms, regardless of whether they have been proved by the manufacturing country, should be re-proved in the United Kingdom prior to sale, unless there is a specific bilateral agreement between the United Kingdom and the other country. Such bilateral agreements exist at present with eight other countries. At this point I should make it clear that firearms manufactured or used by the Crown are proved by the Crown Proof Authority, which forms part of the Ministry of Defence. The provisions of the existing Act do not apply and it is not included in our proposal to join the CIP. Its activities will be entirely unaffected by the Bill.
Before explaining why we wish to join, I shall say a little about what the CIP is. It was established by Convention in 1969 and is based in Belgium. The text
of the Convention was presented to Parliament by my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in March 1975, in Cmnd. 5942; and we then expressed the intention of joining. The rôle of the CIP is to establish a common standard among Member States for the proof of small arms for civil use, though Member States can, of course, set their own higher standards if they wish. If a country's methods of proof meet the CIP's standards, and if that country is accepted as a member of the Convention, then its proof marks will be recognised as acceptable by all other members, who will waive the requirements for re-proof when small arms are imported from that State. There are currently 11 members of the CIP. It is primarily a European body, with members from both Western and Eastern Europe. A number of other countries, for example Sweden and Finland, have shown an interest in joining. The unanimous agreement of existing members is required for the admission of new members. In
1360
recent years the CIP has become the principal international forum for the exchange of technical information on civil small arms, gun safety and, more recently, ammunition.
Both the United Kingdom proof houses and the United Kingdom gun trade generally support our intention to apply to join the CIP. The Commission, too, has made it clear that it would welcome our membership. Our guns and ammunition are of a high quality and our standards of proof are respected worldwide; they would easily meet CIP standards. The Commission has been generous in allowing the United Kingdom proof houses to participate unofficially in its proceedings and to have access to its technical information in the belief that a United Kingdom application to join was imminent. But we cannot expect this free unofficial help to continue forever.
The advantages of joining will be apparent from what I have already said. First, our exports to CIP members would be exempted from the requirement for re-proof. This can be expected to facilitate trade. Exports to CIP members in 1976 accounted for about one-quarter of the total volume of small arms exports and one-fifth of their total value. As more countries join, the volume and value of our exports is likely to grow. Secondly, CIP membership would give the United Kingdom proof houses access to CIP technical information. This would be of considerable benefit as our proof houses are relatively small establishments and do not have the resources to undertake the full range of research and development. Thirdly, we believe we have a contribution to make in improving CIP proof and safety standards; and it is appropriate to join the CIP now, just before it moves into new fields such as cartridge testing and setting standards for ammunition. One consequence of joining will be that the bilateral arrangements under the 1868 Act will cease; but all but one of the countries with whom we have such arrangements are already members of CIP and the remaining country's proof houses no longer function, so there is no disadvantage.
Turning to the Bill itself, it is a short measure consisting of seven clauses and four Schedules. The first clause amends the 1868 Act in order to enable the United

1361
Kingdom to accede to the Convention by substituting the new Sections 129, 130 and 131, which are set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill, for Sections 129 to 137 of the 1868 Act, and makes transitional arrangements, in Schedule 2, for the registers of foreign proof marks presently kept by the proof houses. The new sections set out in Schedule 1 provide for the recognition of CIP proof marks, require the two proof houses to keep a copy of the CIP's register, exempt barrels bearing Convention proof marks from the proof requirements of the 1868 Act and modify the offence-creating provisions of that Act, which I understand are mainly about forgery, so as to apply them to Convention proof marks. The transitional provisions contained in Schedule 2 relate to the register of foreign proof marks currently kept by the two proof houses in connection with the existing bilateral arrangements.
The second clause removes the geographical limitation in Section 89 of the 1868 Act, which presently restricts the siting of a branch proof house to within 10 miles of the City of London or Birmingham. This will enable the proof houses to set up branches wherever sufficient demand exists, perhaps temporarily at a manufacturer's or dealer's premises, where a particularly large batch of firearms needs proving. This would be quicker and safer and would result in taking large quantities of firearms off the roads.
The third clause provides for the metrication of the Rules of Proof in line with CIP practice as well as our general policy on metrication. The fourth clause extends the 1868 and 1950 Acts to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Although there are no plans to establish proof houses in either of these areas, this clause is a logical consequence of the removal of the 10-mile limit in Clause 2, and it removes certain ambiguities under the existing Acts. The remaining clauses, together with Schedules 3 and 4, provide for minor and consequential amendments and repeals, interpretation and so on.
This Bill will enable the United Kingdom to join the international forum concerned with commercial gun proofing. Our membership will simplify international proofing arrangements, facilitate trade and enable the United Kingdom industry to participate fully in this growing international
1362
body. It is a useful measure which I commend to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Winterbottom.)
3.27 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for explaining what to me is a rather complicated Bill. All the objectives of the Bill which appear in the Long Title are indeed laudable and desirable, especially the wish of the Government to accede to the Convention of Brussels, which the noble Lord explained. Noble Lords will be looking forward to the maiden speech, in which I am sure he will make some expert comments, of the noble Lord, Lord Tryon. Speaking personally, I am not a member of the gun makers' trade nor am I classified under any of the professions set out in Schedule 1, the new Section 131(3), which refers to—
"… a gun maker or gun barrel maker, or a maker of or dealer in small arms or barrels, or in any parts for small arms or barrels".
I have no interest to declare in that line. However, I am a gun user and a frequent visitor to certain areas where shotguns are used. The Bill makes exemptions from our proof regulations for foreigners or visitors and for the guns of proof makers of a Convention type. It seems that the gun makers of Britain are very much in favour of the Bill and of the Convention's acceptance; indeed, I understand that the trade has been pressing for just such a Bill for a number of years. Thus, we are doubly glad that the Government have found time to present the Bill.
Lord Winterbottom explained the Bill admirably but there is one provision which I hope he will be able to analyse. He said that Schedule 3 contained some minor and consequential amendments—indeed, that is the title of the Schedule—but he will have noted the new paragraph which has to be inserted, which, according to the Bill, deals with the acquisition of land in Scotland. I am at a loss to comprehend that because it begins:
"For the purpose of acquiring land by agreement in Scotland …".
That is most interesting.
The new provision goes on to deal with the Land Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act and, additionally, the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act. But certainly from my experience

1363
in Scotland, land is not often acquired pace the Gun Barrel Proof Act 1868, nor indeed is the proof mark of the greatest relevance to rail travellers north of Carlisle or Berwick. Therefore, I wonder how the Act of 1868 applies to these two fairly minor Acts of fairly ancient date. The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, speaks for the Government on defence matters, but I think that even he would agree that the 1868 Act is covering a matter which seems to be rather outside the immediate area of safe gun barrels; but perhaps he may be able to assist me on this point now or later.
None of us, especially those of us in this House, should forget the tremendous efforts made by British gun makers to improve our export earnings, nor indeed the reputation of our sporting guns all over the world. I was very concerned before I studied the Bill in detail, lest it might dilute the very high standards to which our gunmakers adhere. I thought that the Bill may at least allow other nations' gun makers to sell in the United Kingdom guns which could be of a lesser standard than is now permitted here. But happily my fears and worries have been totally removed on studying the Bill and by the assurances given by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom.
I am also given to understand that the members of the two proof houses in Birmingham and in London are much in favour of the passage of the Bill. Certainly all of us await the speeches of other noble Lords, whose knowledge of this subject is far greater than
mine and possibly that of the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom. I am sure that the whole House will be very grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, can enlighten me on the little legal point concerning Scotland. This is a desirable Bill. We wish it well, and we hope that it will have a speedy passage through your Lordships' House.
3.32 p.m.
The EARL of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, we also welcome this Bill introduced by the Government this afternoon, and I am particularly looking forward, as I know your Lordships are, to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Tryon. I was hoping that I would be speaking after him so that I could speak about him,
1364
rather than about shotgun proofing. I have one or two points about which I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom. I am concerned about when we finally become members of the CIP,which I believe to be a very good thing, and which at the moment involves 11 countries scattered throughout the world. Five of those countries, including us, are Members of the Common Market. I wonder whether future policy might be to try to include the other four countries which are not in the CIP: Ireland, Holland, Denmark and Luxembourg.
The Bill will enable us to share in any advance there is in proofing methods and technology. Should any noble Lord consider that we should not join the CIP, I feel that the other members of the CIP may then believe that we had a fear that our methods were outdated and that we did not want to lay our cards on the table. That would spell disaster for the English gun trade. We must bear in mind that, although for a number of years we have been invited to attend CIP conferences, up to now we have never had a chance to voice our opinions at any of those meetings. I very much welcome the Second Reading of the Bill.
3.34 p.m.
Lord TRYON: My Lords, I rise with great diffidence to address your Lordships for the first time. This is probably made rather more so by the build-up I have been given by the two previous speakers. I have been very lucky in my life to have had a very varied career in a number of different fields, but one in which I have virtually no experience whatever is that of public speaking, and your Lordships' normal tolerance to first-timers may be somewhat tested this afternoon. However, I hope that I shall have the opportunity of improving my speeches to your Lordships over a great many years to come.
At this stage I must declare an interest, although I hope that your Lordships will see it more as a qualification for speaking on this somewhat obscure topic, than as anything more sinister. I am a non-executive director, and a small shareholder, in what I am advised to describe, in order to spare your Lordships a break for the commercial, as a leading firm of London gunmakers. I am also the non-executive chairman of a company

1365
which makes accessories for the gun trade, whose existence and prosperity are vitally tied to the prosperity of the United Kingdom gun trade both here and overseas.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said some very kind things about the gunmaking industry, and I believe them to be true. I think that demonstrably the United Kingdom gun trade continues to lead the world, particularly at the high quality end, and as evidence of this I should say that the second-hand value of any top-class English-made gun commands a very large premium over any second-hand gun of any foreign make anywhere in the world. We have now reached a stage where a really good quality second-hand gun is probably worth about £5,000 anywhere in the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, also referred to exports, and if my experience is typical—and I believe it is—I should say that the United Kingdom gun trade plays a major part in the export activities of this country. A very high proportion of its present output is exported. I believe that the quality of United Kingdom guns is second to none in the world, and international proof standards today hold no fears whatever for the United Kingdom gun industry, or for anyone in it to whom I have spoken.
As a general point I would draw your Lordships' attention to the slightly strange feature of guns, as opposed to other consumer durables or products of any kind. I refer to their tremendous longevity, and in any legislation account must be taken of the fact that there are in use today guns made a hundred years ago, which are still working perfectly well. My own guns, I believe, were made in 1887, which I think was before the motorcar was even invented, or at least before it was working properly. On the analogy of the motorcar, I should say that the products of the leading London firms of gunmakers, and indeed some of the Birmingham firms in the past and today, are as well-known and respected throughout the world by those who shoot, as Rolls-Royce motorcars are among anyone who drives a motorcar.
I believe that the gun trade really welcomes the United Kingdom being able to accede to the 1969 Convention for the
1366
Reciprocal Recognition of Proof Marks. I had hoped to get away with saying CIP instead, but I saw the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, here earlier, and even as a beginner I know what would happen if I used merely the initials.
The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has referred already to the advance in technology which the United Kingdom will be able to share, and I think it is fair to say that the gun trade was beginning to be very worried that, if this Bill had not come forward in the near future, there could have been a withdrawal of reciprocal arrangements with other countries. This would have been an absolute disaster for the United Kingdom gun trade. Therefore, thanks are due to the Government for introducing the Bill earlier than many people had feared would be the case. I should like to add that when I went to the proof house a few days ago to refresh my knowledge of this somewhat obscure subject, I was very glad to hear that those at the Home Office who have been responsible for drafting the Bill had taken considerable trouble to visit the proof house to learn at first-hand what it was all about. That, I think, is very praiseworthy.
I would make two points on the content of the Bill. The first may be thought flippant, but I think it should be made nevertheless. Clause 3 refers to metrication and provides for detailed metrication of gun barrel bores and what-have-you. I should like some re-assurance—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, could give this at the end of the debate—that this is not the beginning of any idea to apply metrication to the bores of shotguns, in particular. I think that in the case of rifles metrication is already well used and well established—I expect that my cousin, the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, will refer to this later; he knows more about rifles than I do—but to bring in any requirement for people to order 18·3 mm. ammunition, which is the same as the 12-bore, would, I think, cause nothing but unnecessary confusion. The present gauges of shotguns-12-bore, 16-bore, et cetera—have been well known throughout the world for many years and are well established in countries which have been metrified (if that is the right word) for a great many

1367
years. Such a proposal, I think, would lead to nothing but endless and possibly dangerous confusion.
Secondly—this may be a contentious point and completely out of order—I am not sure that we have the Title of this Bill right. I appreciate that it is a successor to a number of other Bills—now Gun Barrel Proof Acts—but it is, in a way, a misnomer, and we may be perpetuating a somewhat dangerous misunderstanding which I think exists in the minds of some of the public. When a gun is proofed, the entire structure that comes under pressure is tested, and this means the action in the case of a shotgun, the bolt in the case of a rifle, just as much as the barrel. I am told by the London Proof House that for every three barrels that fail proof there is probably one action that fails proof, and I fear that in some people's minds there may be a misapprehension that if the barrel of a gun is okay then that gun is safe. That is not so, and failure in the action of a gun—that is the bit that holds the cartridge in place while it is fired—is more likely to end in the death of the shooter, the firer, than is a failure in the barrel, where the most likely effect is the loss of the left hand. This is a point that perhaps your Lordships might like to consider in Committee. I thank your Lordships for your indulgence.
3.44 p.m.
Lord SWANSEA: My Lords, this is the first occasion on which it has fallen to my lot to congratulate a maiden speaker, and I am particularly pleased to have this opportunity today to congratulate my noble cousin Lord Tryon on his excellent maiden speech. Of course, this House has a great reputation for producing those who can speak with authority on practically any subject you like to mention, and my noble cousin has nobly upheld this tradition. His speech was most informative, brief, to the point and certainly authoritative. We have all greatly enjoyed listening to him, and I hope we shall have many opportunities in the future to hear his contributions to our discussions.
My Lords, like previous speakers, will be very brief. I, too, have an interest of a sort to declare, since I am a member of the Livery of the Worshipful Company of Gunmakers, which is one of the two
1368
companies, the other being the Guardians of the Birmingham Proof House, mentioned in this Bill. I can confirm that this Bill is welcomed with open arms by the Gunmakers' Company and by the Guardians of the Birmingham Proof House. For several years they have been waiting rather anxiously for it to appear, but they are very pleased now that it has at last broken the surface in your Lordships' House, and they hope it will have a speedy and easy passage here and through the other place.
The accession of the United Kingdom to the CIP will be a valuable one for the gunmaking trade in the United Kingdom, because both our proof houses have such a great store of experience behind them—particularly the London Proof House, having operated for 340 yeas—that I am sure that the other countries will find that they have something to learn from our experience. I am sure, too, that we will also profit considerably from the exchange of information which will then become possible between all the participant countries.
It will also help greatly, I think, the promotion of trade in the export of rifles and shotguns of our own manufacture, which one could say quite reasonably is a field in which we lead the world because we have some wonderful craftsmen working in this trade. They produce weapons—shotguns, rifles—which are marvels of engineering, and marvels of workmanship in the way the parts are fitted together and in the finish and decoration of the arms. English-made weapons have a reputation which is worldwide; and, of course, the proof marks of the London and Birmingham Proof Houses, too, have a worldwide reputation and are accepted in many parts of the world as standards of really high quality. The CIP sets certain standards of proof among member countries, but let it be realised that those are of course minimum standards and, if it so wishes, any country is entirely free to use higher standards in its own proof houses.
My noble cousin Lord Tryon mentioned the question of shotgun gauges and the possible change-over to metric measurements. I am speaking entirely off-the-cuff on this, but I am not aware of any intention in any country to give the bore diameters of shotguns in metric units, because the

1369
old gauges—12-bore, 16-bore, 20-bore and so on—have been in use all over the world for a great many years and are fully understood, even in those countries which otherwise use the metric system. If you go to France or Germany and buy a box of 12-bore cartridges, you know exactly what you are going to get and they know exactly what you mean when you ask for them. So I do not think the noble Lord need worry on that score.
The question of chamber lengths, however, is another matter, and those of your Lordships who shoot will have noticed that on the box of shotgun cartridges the case length is given both in inches and in millimetres. That is obviously something which has come to stay, and from the point of view of safety it is very important to know that the cartridges you intend to use do not exceed the length of the chamber of your gun.
The noble Lord, Lord Tryon, also mentioned the question of the Title of the Bill. I see his point quite clearly because at one time, when the original Act was passed in 1868, breech loaders had only just begun to appear in the world and nearly all the weapons in use were muzzle loaders. Therefore, all that the proof was required to do was to test the strength of the barrel of the muzzle loader. Now we have breech loaders with various types of actions to support the base of the cartridge case; and the strength of the action is every bit as important as the strength of the barrel.
I should imagine that this Bill carries the Title that it does simply to tie it in with the earlier Act. I think that possibly this point might be borne in mind by the Government to make it clear, if they think necessary, that the process of proof does test the strength of the action as well as that of the barrel. That is all I have to say. Like other noble Lords, I commend the Bill to the House and wish it an easy passage.
Lord BRAYE: My Lords, I believe that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, say something about ammunition. It is possible on the Continent now to purchase very high-velocity ammunition which could damage the proof of English guns if it were continuously used. Can the noble Lord make any comment on that?
3.53 p.m.
Lord NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I would add my congratulations also to the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, on a most well-informed and excellent speech. There is just one minor point to which I shall refer, the metrication of British gun proofs; but I will come to that later. The noble Lord has done his homework well and his knowledge is excellent. I would congratulate him wholeheartedly. This Bill is welcomed by the majority of people who are connected with firearms, particularly by gunsmiths and dealers; but, unfortunately, they do not find the Bill quite as clear as I am sure your Lordships found it when you glanced through it for the first time. For example, the Explanatory Memorandum reads:
"Nearly all of the principal nations who manufacture and export sporting weapons and other small arms are now signatories to the Convention …".
I think that we have forgotten the United States of America, who are not signatories to it. In fact, in America, the manufacturers are not bound to proof their weapons. The American system and others are protected by a penal dollar fine on any American manufacturer of small arms who puts on the market a weapon which explodes and does damage. We have also forgotten, I think, the Czechs, who are very large exporters of sporting weapons; the Japanese, who are rising; and the Russians.
Schedule 2 to the Bill provides for certain transitional provisions as to the exemption of certain foreign barrels from proof under the 1968 Act. I have carefully read Schedule 2 in conjunction with a leading gunsmith and neither of us finds it clear which foreign barrels are exempt from proofing. Perhaps the noble Lord could enlighten the House on that matter. Also in the Explanatory Memorandum it says:
"Clause 3 provides for metrication of the Rules of Proof".
But Clause 3 states:
"… may be expressed in imperial units or in metric units".
I am not quite sure whether in the future we are to express them in imperial units or in metric units.
Clause 4 extends the Gun Barrel Proof Acts 1868 and 1950 to Scotland and Northern Ireland. I hardly think that a

1371
member of Her Majesty's Forces stationed in Northern Ireland, or one of Her Majesty's subjects living there, will be very much interested in whether or not the gun which shoots them is proofed. On the other hand, I see the Government's point. We must do the best we can.
This leads me to remind your Lordships that there are basically three types of people who use firearms. First, the reasonable sportsman who is a knowledgeable person who has his gun in safe
keeping. He keeps it clean and in repair and there are very few problems with him. The only difficulty lies in the fact that most accidents concerning arms involve a tremendous amount of work by the police Forces and the person who legitimately and properly uses and keeps firearms.
There is a second type of person whom I think I shall describe as "irresponsible" —and, in fact, a fool. I will here state the obvious to your Lordships: a gun barrel blows only once. The person who does not keep his guns property and does not have them proofed and allows them to pit and come off the face, finds it out too late.
My Lords, there is a third type of person who uses guns; that is, the criminal. I regret to tell your Lordships that mostly they have easy access to the guns of one sort or another that they require. Anybody can walk into a gunsmith's and buy ammunition for shotguns, particularly buckshot, which is deadly. The type of gun produced in America and in various other countries, the pump gun or automatic, also deadly, is as available as the single-barrel, the side-by-side or the over-and-under. While on the subject of American guns, our proof houses may not be quite up to the work which is necessary. I know that the firm of Winchester, in America, which probably everybody has heard of, ship their guns via West Germany into England for proofing in West Germany because they find it difficult for them to be proofed in this country.
There is one other matter on the question of finance. To the United Kingdom, as has been pointed out, the gun trade is worth a great deal of money; in fact, it is worth millions. From this automatically follows on (shall we say?) police action
1372
from Home Office rulings. In the 1950s, there was an amnesty granted to people who handed in firearms of various sorts. These were sold and were not destroyed. But, at the present moment, any gun handed in to the police under the present amnesty or under any amnesty which the police practically invariably grant to someone who finds a gun in the attic, goes under the steam hammer and is crushed. In many cases, the gun is worth nothing; but in other cases it may be worth a very great deal of money.
Your Lordships may remember that a year or two ago an officer in a famous cavalry regiment sawed off the barrels of a pair of Purdey's which, at a conservative estimate, were probably worth £10,000 and robbed a bank of £2,000 or £3,000. I knew him quite well; he was not a very sensible chap. I wonder what happened to that pair of Purdey's. Having robbed several banks, he is obviously not a person who should be allowed to keep a pair of shotguns. Although I have never seen them, the action of these guns is worth from between £5,000 and £10,000, probably about £8,000. Were they put under the steam hammer? Did we sell them? What did we do with them? What do we do with all the other guns that are handed in? I am told that they amount to millions a year.
As to the proofing of rifles, rifles very seldom blow. Occasionally the action of a rifle goes, and very occasionally the barrel goes. Normally the rifling in a barrel will wear out long before the actual action has gone or the barrel becomes unsafe. There are certain problems regarding shotguns, and we should look to the future there. The gun trade is now experimenting with fibre glass with fine inner linings of steel, and the proofing of those guns will be exceptionally difficult.
There is one other point. This Bill provides for the proofing of guns, but it does not safeguard the person who has an old gun with black powder proofing only, from using it. I have had paper-thin Damascus barrels. I have seen people using them. I say, "For goodness' sake do not use that! I will lend you one". The reply is, "It's all right. I only use it to shoot a few crows in the garden". But it will blow hint up just the same.
Regarding metrication, this is a slightly technical matter. It has been explained

1373
to me, and I hope I understand it enough to explain it to your Lordships. Before the days of proofing, when a shotgun was made, the gunsmith took a lead ball, a sphere, and he dropped down the end of the barrel the largest one that would go to the end and roll out. He then found out how many of these spheres there were to the pound. If it was 12, then the gun was 12 bore; if it was 14, it was a 14 bore; if it was 20, it was a 20 bore. We have not improved very much on it from that date. Today if you go to a gunmaker and buy a box of cartridges for a 12 bore you will find that you will be firing a lead charge which, if multiplied by 12, weighs a pound. We have not progressed very much further. It might be a good idea if this Bill were to take in a bit more.
Today when a gun is proofed it is stamped and the measurement of the bore is taken 9 in. from the breech. This is measured very accurately. In English marking it is in thousandths of an inch. It is measured normally between 728 and 739 thousandths of an inch. Between those two numbers it is always marked 729 thousandths of an inch. If the gun is marked 729 thousandths of an inch and is 729 thousandths of an inch, it will not be out of proof until the internal diameter of the bore measures 740 thousandths of an inch, by which time there will have been over 10 thousandths of an inch of wear and the weapon, towards the end of its life, is becoming slightly dangerous.
Many great gunmakers used to make their weapons somewhere around the 735 or 736 thousandths of an inch mark. There has to be only three or four thousandths of an inch of wear for the gun to be out of proof. It we are going to retain imperial measurement it would be a good idea to mark the internal diameter of the bore 9 in. from the breech at the actual figure at the time of proofing. It is then possible to give it 10 thousandths of an inch of wear before it wears out.
The continentals mark weapons in millimetres. There is a marking of about 18·3 m.m. There could still be something in the region of 10 thousandths of an inch wear before the gun comes out of proof. Also they do something else which is very useful: they weigh the barrel and stamp the weight on the barrel. That means that the gunmaker or purchaser of a new
1374
gun or a second-hand gun has only to weigh the barrel to find out how much metal has been worn away. At the moment, under the English proof marking system, the gunsmith cannot tell the amount of wear inside the barrel, because, between 728 and 739 thousandths of an inch, all are marked at 729 thousandths of art inch. I apologise for bringing forward this technical point but it is a fairly important one. It is a matter which I feel your Lordships might care to consider further.

THE CROWN AGENTS: FAY REPORT
4.8 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development in another place about the Crown Agents. The Statement is as follows:
"I am today publishing the report of the Committee which I appointed in 1975, under the chairmanship of His Honour Judge Fay, to 'inquire into the circumstances which led to the Crown Agents requesting financial assistance from the Government'.
"These terms of reference involved the Committee in detailed examination of events which were complex and spread over a period of years. I am most grateful to Judge Fay and his two colleagues for the impressive way in which they carried out this heavy task. Their report is of the greatest value, and the Government and the Crown Agents accept the report as a fair and searching investigation into the facts.
"Simultaneously, I have published a Statement giving the Government's reactions to this report. Annexed to the Statement is the report of the earlier inquiry into the Crown Agents under the chairmanship of Sir Matthew Stevenson. This report is relevant to the events described in the Fay Report, and is quoted in that report. The Government has therefore decided, with the agreement of Sir Matthew Stevenson and his colleagues, that it is now right to publish the earlier report. I have,

1375
of course, consulted the right honourable Member for Bridlington and the Opposition on this matter.
"Honourable Members will no doubt be studying all these documents, and I do not want to go over the ground again now. But the House will expect me to mention the salient points.
"Firstly, the Fay Report shows that a serious state of affairs was allowed to develop over the years up to 1974. As a result, the Crown Agents incurred losses which are likely to prove to be over £200 million.
"As the Government Statement says, we accept the report's conclusion that there were serious shortcomings on the part of the Crown Agents, and that Departments and other outside agencies contributed to the failure to prevent losses.
"These losses have led the Government to emphasise on several occasions that they stand behind the Crown Agents. A Government grant of £85 million was made in December 1974, and we shall be ready to put proposals to Parliament as and when further assistance is necessary. As a result, the Crown Agents' overseas principals need not fear that any part of the funds which they entrusted to the Crown Agents will be lost.
"I must stress that the Crown Agents' traditional functions played no part in causing these heavy losses. Nor have they been harmed by those losses.
"The losses arose solely from 'an unwise decision to operate as financiers on own-account', to use the words in paragraph 422 of the Fay Report. That course of action has now been decisively reversed.
"The Government Statement summarises the corrective action which my predecessors and I have taken since 1974 in respect of defects in the relations between the Crown Agents and Departments which the report identifies as major factors in the disasters.
"There was uncertainty over the Crown Agents' status and relationship to the Government; these have been defined. The Government were receiving wholly inadequate information
1376
on the Crown Agents' affairs—new arrangements now ensure that we get full and regular reports. Whereas there was insufficient control or direction by Ministers, clear directives now exist, and I am consulted by the Crown Agents on all major policy decisions.
"I am therefore confident that nothing like the events described in the report could ever happen again. I lay great stress on this, because the Crown Agents' future in providing their valuable services to their principals depends on it.
"However, we cannot leave past events there. The question of responsibility for what went wrong needs more specific investigation than the Fay Committee were able to give it. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is therefore setting up a Committee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Sir Carl Aarvold with the following terms of reference:
'In the light of the Report of the Fay Committee, to assess the nature and gravity of any neglect or breach of duty by individuals which may have occurred in the Crown Agents, the Ministry of Overseas Development, the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Exchequer and Audit Department'.
"That inquiry will mark the end of a sorry chapter in the Crown Agents' long and otherwise distinguished history. Looking to the future, I am confident that under their present Board the Crown Agents can maintain and develop their traditional services soundly and successfully, to the benefit of all their principals."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.12 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Baroness has repeated an important and, in many respects, a grave Statement. It consists really of four parts: the Statement which the noble Baroness has just made, the longer Statement to which she referred and which presumably is being put in the Library, the report of Sir Matthew Stevenson which is contained in the longer Statement, and the Fay Report which accompanies this Statement. I agree with the noble Baroness that it would be imprudent for us to comment in any detail until we have had the opportunity of reading the various reports.

1377
However, one or two things clearly come to mind and one of them is very important: that is, over the years the Crown Agents have performed a remarkable service for Governments overseas, who are their principals, as well as for the British Government. They still, in changed circumstances, perform a remarkable role, and it is to be much regretted that an incident such as this, long and complicated though it may be, should have cast an adverse shadow on such a reputable organisation. The Statement
which the noble Baroness has just made, f was glad to see, emphasised again the fact that the Government are prepared to stand behind the Crown Agents to the extent that they will protect the interests of the principals and also protect their confidence. In that respect, they are entirely correct and I would welcome their decision.
However, it is important to keep a correct balance in the affairs of the Crown Agents. It would be wrong if public attention were to be focused on the had points at the expense of the good ones. The fact is that even now they deal with over 100 Governments and manage some £1·75 thousand million. That is a colossal amount of money by any standards. The distinction should be drawn between the growth of the Crown Agents' traditional services, to which the noble Baroness quite rightly referred, as opposed to what is called "the realisation account", where the problems over secondary banking and investment came. The traditional services have indeed improved under the able chairmanship of Mr. John Cuckney, particularly over the last three years.
Having said that, I wonder whether I might ask the noble Baroness questions referring to three particular points. The Statement says that the Crown Agents have made losses in excess of £200 million. Of course, the Government made available in 1974 £85 million. Has that all been used up? Do the Government intend to produce more money and, if so, how will it be produced, by loans or by grants? Clearly, the Crown Agents must be subjected to proper accountability and I wonder whether the noble Baroness can say whether it is the Government's intention to incorporate the Crown Agents and make them, like other statutory authorities, subject to financial disciplines and also responsible to a Minister? If I so, will that be done by means of a Bill
1378
or by other means? Perhaps we can be told how it will be done.
The third point is the fact that there is to be another inquiry. I thought the words were impressive, when we were told the terms of reference:
"… to assess the nature and gravity of any neglect or breach of duty by individuals which may have occurred in the Crown Agents, the Ministry of Overseas Development, the Treasury, the Bank of England and the Exchequer and Audit Department".
It appears that the inquiry might be almost like another Crichel Down inquiry. I would not wish to embarrass the noble Baroness and if she does not wish to answer these questions now I can understand. Having said that, may I further ask whether she would not agree that people who are to be interviewed or called to give evidence must have full and proper rights when called as witnesses and that they should be properly represented? I wonder whether such an inquiry will be of a judicial nature or, if not, what form it will take. When inquiries like this occur, a lot of mud inevitably gets flung around and some inevitably sticks unjustly. I hope that the Government will see that all is done to ensure that such an inquiry is as fair, as just and as penetrating as possible.
This problem goes back a long way and I wonder whether in this inquiry there is likely to be any cut-off point in time. Some people involved in the considerations have inevitably retired and some have probably died; so it is very important to ensure that, as it were, the dead are not slandered because they have no possibiility of refuting any arguments which may be put up against them. Much hurt and harm can easily be done against the names and indeed the honour of people who have given a great deal to their organisations and they are unable to stand up and testify against evidence which is given. That can give rise to great harm and hurt to the individuals' relations who are still living. I hope that the Government will take steps to ensure that the rectitude and the memory of those who were involved and who may not now be here will not be unjustly damaged.
4.20 p.m.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for

1379
presenting us with this Statement. I sympathise with her in having to express regret so publicly for these huge losses of over £200 million. I do not want to comment on these at this moment, because, clearly, we shall have to have a debate about the Fay Report and its implications. But what I should like to ask the noble Baroness is about the inordinate delay in our getting these papers. They have just arrived today, 1st December. The Committee was appointed in 1975 and the Stevenson Report was completed on, I think, 24th March 1972. I have just had a moment merely to glance at the papers, but it is because there has been this inordinate delay in presenting the facts and figures that this situation arose in the first place. So I should like to ask the noble Baroness why we have had to wait so long to hear this bad news.
As I said, I do not want to dwell on the figures at this stage, but there are points in the noble Baroness's Statement with which I must disagree, and with which I believe my noble friends on these Benches also disagree. The noble Baroness said that:
"The losses arose solely from an unwise decision to operate as financiers on own-account'."
I do not accept that at all. I feel that there were very major factors at work internally in the audit department, in the accounting procedures and in the presentation of operating figures, which do not in any way justify the statement that it was merely bad investment or poor business judgment.
The noble Baroness went on to say that the Government Statement summarises the corrective action, but it seems to admit a very important change in procedure of the Crown Agents' accounts which took place in 1975. If she looks at the 1975 accounts, she will see that they were separated into a realisation account, the account with all the bad news, so to speak, and an operating account. Then there is a very interesting statement:
"The object of preparing the accompanying accounts has been to show substantially the same amount of information as if' the body were corporate and subject to the requirements of the Companies Act."
What I want to ask is: what on earth were they using before that? If the Auditor-General was quite happy to prepare
1380
accounts which bore no relation to the requirements of the Companies Act, then I think we are beginning to see where the trouble started to arise with the Crown Agents. They were not proper books or accounts in any way like those kept by a normal company in law.
This, at least, is a major step forward and I should like to emphasise what has already been said in answer to the noble Baroness: this distinction should be clearly made between the Operating Account and the fine work that the Crown Agents are doing today, and will continue to do, and the problems that occur on the Realisation Account. If the noble Baroness can reassure us on these Benches that this distinction has been made clear in these accounts, it will be most helpful. I am afraid I cannot share the confidence of the noble Baroness that nothing like this will ever happen again, certainly until she is able to clarify my mind and the minds of my colleagues about proper accounting procedures—
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I do not wish to intervene too much and stop Members, but I hope the noble Lord will appreciate that this is only a Statement and is not a debate, though one can ask suitable questions.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I make one final point concerning the announcement that the noble Baroness's right honourable friend the Prime Minister intends to set up a Committee of Inquiry to look into this matter? I should merely like to say that I wonder whether this could be reconsidered: first, for the reasons already given this afternoon, and, secondly, because I do not see any value in kicking over old leaves in the hope that they may fall back on to the tree. I do not see that any value can be gained by producing yet another report in perhaps another two years' time.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I shall do my best to answer the barrage of questions which I have received from both noble Lords. But may I start by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, very warmly indeed for what he said about the work of the Crown Agents? They do the most splendid work, and have done for more than 140 years. I am most grateful to him for what

1381
he said, because it is very important to this country, as well as to the Principals who use the Crown Agents. So that for that I am most grateful. If I may deal with his last point first, I can assure him completely that on the Committee of Inquiry, which we feel to be necessary because there has been so much said, so many innuendoes and, indeed, so much revealed, there will be no slander of the dead, and people who cannot answer back will not be dishonoured. I can give the noble Earl that assurance. I am quite sure that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister would not set up such an inquiry.
I believe that the noble Earl's first question was about the £85 million grant and the answer is, No, that is still there. Small amounts have been taken out temporarily, but it is there because there is no problem of liquidity, as the deposits are continuing to come in. As he himself said, the traditional business goes on even better than it did before the appointment of the new Board. So the noble Earl can be quite clear about that. We may have to come and ask for more money, and of course we must come to Parliament for that. Thtat is the way in which it will be done—properly. Yes, we propose to have an incorporation, and that will be done in the form of a Bill as soon as we can. I cannot, of course, promise it for this Session, but we shall do it as soon as we can, because, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, we believe that that is the proper way to run the Crown Agents. I am also confident in what my right honourable friend has said that it will not happen again, precisely because we propose to incorporate the Crown Agents. The methods of accountability, of responsibility to Parliament and dealings with Ministers—all those things will be settled once and for all, and I am confident that it will not occur again. As a matter of fact, I am confident that it will not occur now, before incorporation, because of the excellence of the new Board which has been set up and the instructions which my right honourable friend has given to them.
I will try to cover all the points, and hope not to take too long. It is, of course, for the Committee to determine how it will carry out its investigation, but I am quite sure that any person coming before it will be entitled to bring along whatever legal
1382
advice, in the shape of a representative or of written evidence, he or she wants. It is, of course, for the Committee to decide how it will operate. It will be held in private, but the results will be published. I can assure the House of that, too. The noble Lord asked whether there would be a debate. If I put my other hat on, I am quite sure that the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, will be coming along and asking me whether we can have a debate, and of course we should like one.
The noble Lord asked about the delay. I have no conscience about the delay. As soon as the Government discovered in 1974 a lot of the truth of what had been going on, we set up the full, proper Board under Mr. John Cuckney. We did that very quickly indeed and a few months later, when we saw what was happening, we set up the Fay Committee. Two and a half years is not a long time for a committee such as the Fay Committee to take. Ordinary company inquiries often take that long, and sometimes even longer. That was not a long time. There was practically no delay on publication, because we felt that Parliament had taken such an interest in this matter that it must be published when Parliament was in Session Furthermore, we felt that it should be published in such a way that it protected from privilege and that Parliament could look at it and debate it in full. So we do not feel that there was a delay in the setting up of the report, in the reporting of the report or in the publication of the report. We have no bad conscience at all about that.
I hope that I have not missed out anything. There is one other point which I must make to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw. He said that he did not accept the Fay Report's view that the losses were solely on own-account. But what I quoted was from the Fay Report and I can give him one more quotation from page 2:
"… what went wrong was a part only of the Crown Agents' financial activities".
The troubles affected only their own-account operations. I think that that answers him.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Baroness one question,

1383
although first I should like to say that Sir Carl Aarvold is very acceptable to everybody in this House and is known to most of us. The noble Baroness very rightly said that anybody who may be adversely affected by this new inquiry would be allowed to bring legal representation. Of course, legal representation costs a great deal of money. Where tribunals of a different kind are set up, it is very often the case that the Government are prepared to meet the whole or part of the costs of representation. If the noble Baroness is not prepared to answer that question now, I wonder whether she would consider the possibility of assisting those who may be adversely affected if they feel it necessary in their own interests to obtain legal representation, which can cost hundreds or even thousands of pounds?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for raising that point. I am not optimistic about the Government providing money for that kind of assistance, but I will go into the matter and let the noble and learned Lord know.
Lord DAVIES of LEEKMy Lords, although this is not the place to denigrate the Crown Agents, I should like to ask my noble friend whether we shall have the opportunity ultimately of a constructive discussion on the basis of this report. Secondly, as somebody who a few years ago put down Questions and then withdrew them when I heard about what had been happening, may I ask my noble friend whether or not she is aware that there seems to be error on the accountancy side of both the Bank of England and the Treasury in not noticing the secrecy and the manifestation of ingrown bureaucracy in the Crown Agents in the distant past? I have never seen a report before in a Blue Book. It states: "The office had lost its sense of direction in the spiritual sense." Although it may be unfashionable to use the phrase "the spiritual sense", nevertheless there is quite a lot of it in the world today and we could replace that spiritual sense in this debate when the opportunity occurs.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have already told the House that we shall hope to have
1384
a debate at some point. Perhaps I may add to the very apt quotation that my noble friend has just given. Judge Fay also used the words "folly and euphoria", which sometimes apply in this House, too.

GUN BARREL PROOF BILL [H.L.]
Second Reading debate resumed.
4.32 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it now becomes my pleasant duty to reply to the short debate that we have had on the Gun Barrel Proof Bill. First, may I thank the House in general for the very positive welcome and support they have given to this small but very useful measure? It is because the Government recognise its use that they have found time for it now in your Lordships' House. In particular, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, for his support in what I thought was an outstanding maiden speech. It was clear, audible and based on a knowledge of the subject. I know that all noble Lords hope to hear him speak again soon on the same or other subjects. Also, it will be appropriate if I answer his questions first before I turn to the others.
The noble Lord's first question related to the Clause 3 metrication, the degree to which it is to be limited to shotguns, and its effect if metrication ultimately overrules the Imperial system of measurement. The noble Lord's noble cousin answered that question: that, on cartridges, we at present get both Imperial and metric measurements. Presumably that system will continue until such time as metrication is to us what Imperial measurements were to us when we were younger.
The very interesting description by the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, of how the use of the words "gauge" and "bore" came about was helpful to us in understanding the problem. I had never before heard this explanation. As the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, pointed out, "gauge" is common throughout Europe. Therefore, the change to metrication should not cause confusion or danger. The clause enables both systems to be used. When the noble Lord mentioned the Title, I believe he was correct in saying that it might mislead people who did not know

1385
the whole background to the Bill. If we had had more time I might have suggested to the noble Lord that he should amend the Title at the Committee stage of the Bill, but time is short and we want the Bill. Anybody who knows what the Bill is about will not be misled, because the Long Title of the 1868 Act, and the 1950 Act which amended it, said that its purpose was
"for better ensuring the due proof of gun-barrels and for other purposes".
I should like to make it clear that the proofing tests not only the barrel but the mechanism of the gun as a whole.
May I now turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell? I must admit that he caught me out with some legal knowledge which had nothing, so far as I could make out, to do with the proofing of guns. Am I right in thinking that the noble Lord was referring to paragraph 2 of Schedule 3?
Lord LYELL: Yes, my Lords, that is correct.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Paragraph 2 states:
"After section 6 of the Act of 1868 there shall be inserted the following section— … For the purpose of acquiring land by agreement in Scotland …"
and the two relevant Acts are then mentioned. It is a matter of convenience. Obviously we do not want a Gun Barrel Proof Bill (Scotland) to go through your Lordships' House. We have extended the power of the proof houses to set up subsidiaries in Scotland. Therefore, it is right that we should give them the power to acquire land if they require it, should it be found that Scotland needs a woof house of its own. That is the reason for that paragraph. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, the noble Lord has been kind enough to attempt to satisfy me and he may have fired one barrel of his newly-proofed shotgun at me. The proof houses may need to acquire land to set up another proof office, but I should be most interested to know what the Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act has to do with this matter. Whether there is a ban on establishing proof houses on railway property as
1386
opposed to on other land in Scotland, I do not know. Certainly we could do with the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, to deal with that point, but perhaps we may ask that question another day. The noble Lord has partially satisfied me on one half of my question but not on the railways Act.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I shall bear the point in mind and will hope to satisfy the noble Lord with both barrels at the Committee stage of the Bill. I should also very much like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, for his extremely interesting and erudite speech. Obviously, the various improvements of measurement and the recording of measurement which he enunciated are highly desirable, though I am not quite certain that this kind of thing can be written into a Bill. However, since the British gun industry is entering into full union with the CIP, there will obviously be an exchange of technical information and, presumably, harmonisation whereby the best experience of all the members will be applied to all the weapons which they proof in common. I cannot say whether that will happen. If, however, the noble Lord applies pressure through the sporting gun channels, I imagine that in due course this type of improved recording of the strength of barrels, the bore of barrels and their weight may become standard practice here as, apparently, it is elsewhere. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his informed opinion. Perhaps the fact that we are now entering into a new phase of the work of the CIP, namely the study of ammunition and the explosives within ammunition, will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Braye, regarding his suggestion that high velocity charged ammunition presumably implies a different kind of explosive charge. Presumably, this will come under the general supervision of the CIP under the new arrangement.
I am grateful for the interest taken in this Bill. I am glad that it has received a general welcome on Second Reading. When we come to the Committee stage before the House rises I hope to be able to clear up any unanswered points. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

COYPUS (KEEPING) ORDER 1977
4.41 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI rose to move, That the Coypus (Keeping) Order 1977, laid before the House on 3rd November, be approved. The noble Lord said: I should also like, if I may with your Lordships' permission, to speak to the Mink (Keeping) Order 1977 which follows in the Order Paper under my name which was laid before the House on the 3rd November, and move this formally at the end of the discussion.
My Lords, the orders before your Lordships' House tonight are made under the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932, a measure originally enacted to cope with the musk rat but which provided powers for the agricultural Ministers to use against any species of non-indigenous mammal with destructive habits. These orders renew for a further five years powers expiring on 31st December this year to prohibit the keeping of mink and coypu in Great Britain except under a licence granted by the relevant agricultural Department. These powers were first taken in 1962 and were renewed in 1967 and 1972. The orders also apply to mink and coypus certain provisions of the Destructive Imported Animals Act apart from the requirement to obtain a keeping licence. For example, occupiers of land must give notice of mink and coypu known to be at large and departmental officials may enter and inspect land and may destroy mink or coypu found thereon.
Furthermore, it is an offence under the orders to turn loose any mink or coypu or wilfully to allow it to escape. The objective of the licensing requirement is to prevent escape into the wild from premises where these animals are kept. Experience has shown that their presence in the wild can be highly destructive. This experience has come as a result of earlier escapes from fur farms which led to the establishment of feral populations. For mink, despite strenuous and expensive efforts against them some years ago, the species is now present in most parts of Great Britain, particularly along rivers. As noble Lords are aware, they are voracious predators particularly of poultry and fish. With feral mink the Government's reluctant conclusion has been that there is no prospect of eradication and that the best
1388
help they can give to occupiers and others concerned lies, first, by providing specialist advice on control techniques; secondly, by loaning traps free of charge, and, thirdly, by continuing, with the approval of Parliament, to exercise the powers to regulate mink-keeping premises and thus prevent any avoidable increase in feral population through further escapes.
For coypu the situation is markedly different in that the species is currently at large only in the eastern part of England and largely within specific areas. This species can damage drainage systems by tunnelling under embankment walls and also crops like sugar beet and cereals. Over the years, sustained efforts have been made to contain the area within which the coypu survives and progressively to reduce the population. Latterly, and thanks to special scientific studies, we have been able to direct the trapping campaign so as to deploy the limited resources to maximum advantage.
I am sure that noble Lords will be interested to have details of the number of licences at present in force for the keeping of mink and coypu. Escapes leading to the establishment of the wild population originally took place when both animals were farmed for fur. Mink continues to be a fur production animal and of the 84 licensed premises in Great Britain, 80 are commercial fur farms as distinct from research or similar establishments. On the other hand, coypus are not now kept in this country for fur production. There are only 19 coypu licences, all of which are for keeping the species in research establishments, zoos and the like. As noble Lords are aware fur from the coypu, called nutria, is not now apparently acceptable to the market.
The agricultural Department insists on special security precautions, notably to ensure that adequate fencing is installed and maintained and these are enforced by regular inspection. This monitoring is in addition to the animal welfare inspection of commercial fur farms undertaken by the state veterinary service. I commend these orders to the House as a means of continuing policies which successive Administrations have pursued and which, with our build-up of experience of the damage which can be caused by feral populations, need to be maintained if we are not to

1389
compound our difficulties by permitting further escapes. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Coypus (Keeping) Order 1977, laid before the House on 3rd November, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
4.48 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for explaining to us these two short orders with which Peers on all sides of the House will agree. I should like to ask him two questions to which he may or may not have the answer. He mentioned that there were inspections to see that when licences were given these animals, which are destructive, are kept within their limits. I was glad to hear that there are regular inspections. What experience has the Government of animals escaping, either from mink or coypus farms? My second question is: What is the penalty for an escape? I do not mean one single incident but rather the case of continual reports from local keepers or farmers. Is there any information on that subject?
The coypu is a most destructive animal. I heard from a relative in Yorkshire only a week ago on the subject we will be dealing with next week. An otter
at a certain place has been destroyed by a coypu. We cannot do better than encourage the Government to continue as the noble Lord has indicated. One other thing springs to my mind. On small islands—and I am thinking of some in the northern part of this kingdom—bird sanctuaries have been established for some time. I believe that permission has been given for mink farms in the Orkneys. Is this a wise thing? I hope the regulations about fencing will be very strictly enforced and that the Government are watching very carefully any extensions in areas like that where an escaped mink could do endless damage. However, I should like to thank the noble Lord and recommend these measures to the House.
4.50 p.m.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I also would like to thank the noble Lord for moving that these orders be approved. There are one or two questions I would ask him, if I may. He did not make it
1390
clear to me who in fact licenses these mink and coypu farms. I would be most grateful if he could tell me whether, when they are licensed, there is a standard size of cage which is laid down for the keeping of these animals. I should also be most grateful to have an answer to this question. Is there a requirement under these orders that somebody should be notified if a mink escapes, or does the owner of the mink farm merely look on it as a piece of bad luck if he has lost a mink? The noble Lord said that when people know there are mink on their land they are required to notify the Ministry. I assume it is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It appears that they have reached the state where they have abandoned all hope of controlling this animal; it is spreading at a tremendous rate and it is doing tremendous damage. Could not a little more effort be made, perhaps, to assist owners of properties where these animals are known to be, to eradicate them?
There is another alarming aspect, particularly to the British Veterinary Association. Are any guidelines laid down for the humane destruction of these animals? They are very difficult animals to handle. Not long ago photographs appeared in one Sunday paper. Although rather ancient, they did give an indication that perhaps things were not all that they should be. Finally, before this order appears again, in however many years it is, would it not be simpler to add the mink, at least, to the Schedule of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976?
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, before the Minister replies, perhaps it might help if I can say to noble Lords that I did on one occasion question the way the mink were treated. In fact, before I purchased some mink I asked whether they had met a cruel death. I said, "Did you hit them on the head?" The furrier said, "No; it would spoil the skins". I said, "Well, you have given me the right answer for the wrong reason". But he assured me that they had a painless death, that they were in fact gassed. He added, "They have all they want to eat and an unlimited sex life—and what more could anybody desire?" As he himself was responsible for a mink farm I was not quite sure whether he was prejudiced, but T did at least get the assurance

1391
of the painless death of these animals, which I feel sure the Minister will be able to confirm.
4.53 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords opposite and to my noble friend for the welcome they have given to this order. We are very glad to be continuing the excellent work of the previous Government. In fact I think these orders probably stem from the 1932 Act, which was probably a product of the National Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, asked me a number of questions. First, he asked about the number of escapes. We must put this into perspective. There are no coypu farms at present at all, except for one or two for zoological purposes. The mink farms have decreased considerably; in 1962 there were 600 and now, in 1977, there are only 80. The records of the numbers of escapes are not kept centrally, but the numbers are understood to be insignificant. The mink are always recaptured with the help of Ministry staff. Of course, in connection with the coypu this is a very different matter. Since this semi-aquatic rodent, which originated in Latin America, was introduced in the early 1930s there have been an estimated 200,000 at large. But these have been reduced, I am glad to say, through the intensified methods of control, to about 4,000 only, which are now mainly in East Anglia.
The noble Lord also asked me about penalties. The penalties for allowing mink to escape, and so on, are contained in the 1932 Act under Section 6. For keeping a mink or coypu without a licence the penalty is £20, or, if the offence is committed in respect of more than four animals, £5 for each animal. Acting in contravention of or failure to comply with any term of a licence or any regulation made under the Act is £10, and a further penalty of £2 for every day on which the offence continues after conviction. That is the kind of pattern. Failure to report is £5.
I must admit that these penalties did concern me rather when I began to study this matter before introducing these orders. They have not been revised since they were first laid down in the Destructive Animals Act 1932. I admit that they are
1392
very much in need of revision, if only to take account of inflation since that time. I am seeing that steps are taken to remedy this as soon as a suitable opportunity arises. But we have found from experience that the licence conditions are complied with without the need to resort to prosecutions.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, also asked me a question about the Scottish Islands. There are two farms already on the Shetland Islands but I gather that no problems have been reported. The applicant on Westray is said to have agreed to make security arrangements which go beyond the regulations—double fencing, concrete bases, and sinking of protective mesh further into the ground. With regard to Orkney, of course, this is a difficult matter. There is a proposal for establishing a mink farm on Westray and this has caused considerable concern, rightly, to the Nature Conservancy Council, because of the large and very important seabird breeding colonies off the island.
Following approaches by the NCC, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has suggested to the local planning authority a way in which the issues involved could be publicly debated. The local planning authority have replied is to the Secretary of State's letter, and this at present being considered. Without prejudicing the issue in any way, I think I can say that the Secretary of State is considering making a revocation order as a means of ensuring public debate.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford,—I am glad that he took part in this debate, as he usually does in debates devoted to animals and flora and fauna—asked me a number of questions. The licensing authority for mink and coypu is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for England and Wales, and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. The manner of keeping mink and coypu and precautions against their escape are prescribed in the regulations which flow from the 1932 Act. These are kept up to date by ministerial order and they are called the Mink Keeping Regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, also asked me about methods of killing. That matter was referred
to by my noble friend Lady Phillips whom I am also glad took

1393
part in the debate. I am happy to be able to say that the methods are painless. The methods of painless killing include gassing, injection, electric shocks and dislocation of the neck after stunning. The Fur Breeders Association has been examining methods of humane killing and proposes in due course to issue recommendations. Of course, I need hardly remind the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, that the Animals Act 1911 makes illegal the causing of undue suffering, pain or distress to animals, including mink on fur farms. Moreover, I can also say as regards the welfare of mink, that animals farmed commercially for fur come within the scope of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 under which it is also an offence to cause unnecessary pain or distress.
The noble Lord also asked about procedures for reporting escapes from licensed premises. Under the terms of a licence to keep mink or coypu, licence holders are required to notify the agricultural department concerned of any escape from their premises. When they are reported at large or an escape is known to have taken place in the area, efforts are made to restore the animals to their owner. If there is no reason to suppose that they have escaped from local premises, arrangements are made for their destruction in the most humane manner.
As regards mink and coypus in the wild, Ministry policy is that the responsibility for destroying mink and coypus in the wild rests with the occupier of the land where they are found, who is considered to be in the best position to undertake this responsibility. The keeping orders require occupiers to report the presence of any mink or coypu known to be on their land and which are not, of course, being kept under licence, to the agricultural department concerned which will give advice and lend traps for their control. I hope that I have answered all the questions that have been put to me.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, sits down I apologise to him for talking to my noble friend, but I was not aware that he was taking the two orders together. I merely wish to reinforce what he obviously did—namely, to express the anxiety in Scotland about the proposed mink farm at Westray. The conditions there are so difficult in terms of the countryside that feral mink
1394
would be almost impossible to recapture or control. The BBC produced a very interesting programme on it in "Wild Life" yesterday.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. I saw the programme to which he refers. As I have said in my speech, this is now at Secretary of State level.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINK (KEEPING) ORDER 1977
5.3 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Mink (Keeping) Order 1977, laid before the House on 3rd November, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (VARIATION OF LIMITS) ORDER 1977
5.5 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY rose to move, That the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1977, laid before the House on 14th November, be approved. The noble Lord said:
My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved. The order is submitted for your approval in accordance with Section 86 of the Employment Protection Act 1975. That section requires the Secretary of State for Employment to carry out each year, beginning with 1977, a review of the limits to certain payments made under the Employment Protection and Redundancy Payments Acts. The limits relate to guarantee payments to workers on short-time and temporary lay-off, and to the weekly earnings limit laid down for the purpose of calculating redundancy payments, unfair dismissal awards and certain debts in relation to the insolvency provisions of the Employment Protection Act.
Three factors are to be taken into account in the review

1395
"the general level of earnings obtaining in Great Britain at the time of the review; the national economic situation as a whole; and such other matters as he thinks relevant".
If the Secretary of State, in the light of his review, considers that any of the limits should be changed he must prepare and lay before each House the draft of an order giving effect to his decision which is subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. If he considers that any of the limits should not be varied he must lay before each House a report stating his reasons.
The 1977 review has now been completed. My right honourable friend in another place has decided that all but two of the limits covered by the section ought to be changed and those decisions are set out in the order now before your Lordships and in the report laid at the same time. If the order is approved both in this House and in another place, the changes to the limits will come into effect on 1st February 1978. That is the earliest date on which any change to the guarantee pay limits could take effect, and it will allow time for industry to be alerted to the new limits.
I turn now to the first set of limits covered by Section 86. They concern the guarantee payments provision of the Employment Protection Act 1975 (Sections 22 to 28) under which an employee put on short-time or temporary lay-off is entitled to a guarantee payment for a complete day without work. These payments are subject to three limits on the amount and duration of guarantee payments, all of which must be covered by the annual review. One limit is concerned with the monetary amount and two with duration. The last two are in terms of, first a specified number of days in what is known as a " relevant period " for which an employer must make guarantee payments, and, secondly, the length (and therefore the starting dates) of the relevant periods themselves. At present the monetary limit is £6, the specified number of days is the number of days per week, not exceeding five, worked by an employee under his contract of employment, and the relevant periods are the quarters commencing 1st February, 1st May, 1st August and 1st November. In other words, employees are at present entitled to guarantee payments of up to £6 per day for a maximum of five workless days per quarter.
In reviewing these limits, the first of the three factors which must be taken into account is the general level of earnings obtaining in Great Britain at the time of the review. It is the year-on-year increase in the general level of earnings which is, of course, most relevant in the context of an annual review of the guarantee pay limits. The most up-to-date and comprehensive indicator available at the time of the review related to the year-on-year figure for the whole economy at August 1977, which was published in the October issue of the Department of Employment Gazette, as 7·2 per cent.
The second factor to be taken into account is the national economic situation as a whole. The Government continue to give priority to the attack on inflation and unemployment. Additional costs to employers which might have to be passed on in higher
prices must therefore be kept as low as possible. Moreover, the more an employer has to pay out in guarantee pay the greater the risk that he might consider redundancies as an alternative. Both these considerations militate against any increase to the guarantee pay limits which increase the cost of statutory guarantee pay by more than the rate at which earnings are increasing.
But there is a further consideration to set against these. In relation to the third factor—that is, whether other relevant matters should be taken into account—my right honourable friend has had regard to the fact that some workers are now less well off with statutory guarantee pay for the first live workless days per quarter than they were when they could claim unemployment benefit for those days. This is due mainly to the fact that guarantee pay is subject to tax whereas unemployment benefit is not. The rules for claiming unemployment benefit however are complex. They were designed primarily for the needs of the wholly unemployed and provide inter alia that unemployment benefit is not normally paid for the first three workless days of a spell of short-time or lay-off. Because of this the Department of Employment estimates that only a very small percentage of all the workers on short-time are, in fact, affected by this problem. On its own it would not justify a high across-the-board increase in the monetary limit to guarantee pay. But it does indicate that priority should be

1397
given to increasing the monetary limit rather than the limits on duration.
These three factors have led my right honourable friend to decide to increase the monetary limit to guarantee pay, and to increase it by slightly more than would be indicated by the general level of earnings alone. Noble Lords are therefore being asked to approve an increase of 60p on the £6 limit. So far as the other two guarantee pay limits are concerned, there are separate reasons for not changing them, which are set out in the report laid before your Lordships. It would be premature to change the limits after only nine months' experience of statutory guarantee pay, as they need to be considered in the light of the voluntary arrangements made in industry.
Having dealt with the case for an increase to the guarantee pay limits, I shall now move on to the second and third set of limits referred to in Section 86. These are the weekly earnings limits as applied to the insolvency and unfair dismissal provisions of the Employment Protection Act and to the calculation of a payment under the Redundancy Payments Act. I think it will make it easier to understand if I start with the limit under the Redundancy Payments Act, as it was from this Act that the figure of £80 was adopted in 1975 for the insolvency and unfair dismissal provisions of the Employment Protection Act.
When the earnings limit was first set at £40 in 1965 it was intended to allow the total pay (excluding overtime) for the bulk of the working population to be taken into account in calculating their redundancy payment, while at the same time excluding the higher pay of top managers and executives. This exclusion protected the fund against disproportionate claims in respect of the highest paid earners who frequently enjoy the protection of private redundancy arrangements.
In August 1974, the limit was increased to £80 and restored very broadly the earnings coverage of the scheme to its original level. After taking into account the fact that earnings have risen substantially since August 1974, and the national economic situation as a whole—that is the need to keep additional costs to a minimum both for employers and to
1398
the Redundancy Fund—we have reached the conclusion that an increase from £80 to £100 would be reasonable.
I think it would help if I attempted to explain very briefly the way in which a redundancy payment is calculated. A scale provides for each year of service to be worth either half a week, one week or one and a half weeks' pay according to age. At present earnings in excess of £80 must be disregarded. As the maximum service which may be taken into account is 20 years, the maximum current redundancy payment is £2,400—that is, 30 weeks at £80—the entitlement, for example, of a man aged 62 with not less than 20 years' service and earning at least £80 a week excluding overtime. The increase in the limit to £100 will, therefore, increase the maximum payment to £3,000.
As the earnings limit stands at present, it cuts across the top end of the earnings of many workers, including the higher paid manual workers—who in general are skilled workers. It is estimated that over 25 per cent. of full-time men are earning over £80 a week and the limit we are proposing will give full earnings coverage (excluding overtime) to approximately 87 per cent. of all men (97 per cent. manuals and 71 per cent. non-manuals.) Nor have the ladies been forgotten. The fact is that women tend to earn less on average than men. Therefore, this means that the percentage of women's total earnings covered by a £100 limit will be higher than that for men.
I think it important for us all to be clear about what this change will mean in terms of hard cash. The average redundancy payment is currently of the order of £650. We estimate that it would increase by approximately 5 per cent. Employers will be able to recover 41 per cent. of the additional cost from the Redundancy Fund. The additional cost to the fund is estimated at approximately £4 million for the next financial year, and this can be met without any increase in the amount which employers are required to pay in order to finance the fund.
The additional cost to those employers who are required to make redundancy payments to employees earning more than £80, will be relatively small on average. On the other hand, it will

1399
bring a useful improvement in benefit for the higher paid redundant worker. I am sure that none of us here today would regard it as fair to exlcude part of the earnings of at least 25 per cent. of the working population simply because they happen to be earning more than £80aweek. Indeed, for those employers who have introduced more generous schemes than that provided by the Redundancy Payments Act, under which the whole of the additional cost is borne directly by the employer, the increase in the limit could well bring some financial benefit. In such cases where the statutory benefit can be offset against the private scheme, the larger amount of rebate from the Redundancy Fund which will now be payable in respect of those employees who were earning more than £80 a week, will actually result in a decrease in cost to the employer.
As I mentioned earlier, the earnings limit also applies to the unfair dismissal provisions. Section 75(4) of the Employment Protection Act provides that an £80 limit shall apply in the calculation of the basic award of compensation for unfair dismissal. Because this award is intended to reflect the amount of redundancy payment which would have been received by an employee if he had been fairly dismissed on redundancy instead of being unfairly dismissed, it follows that this limit should remain in line with the redundancy payments earnings limit.
It is also the case that the amount which a tribunal may award where the employer has refused to comply with an order for reinstatement or re-engagement is subject to an £80 weekly earnings limit under Section 72(8) and has, therefore, to be reviewed also. There are no substantial reasons for allowing this limit to get out of line with the limit for redundancy payments. If it is right, as we think it is, to maintain the link between the Redundancy Payments Act and the basic award of compensation for unfair dismissal, it is sensible to keep the limits in step throughout the unfair dismissal provisions and to adopt £100 a week also for the purposes of Section 72(8). The additional cost to public funds of an increase in the limit as it applies to unfair dismissals will be very small. It will be picked up
by the Redundancy Fund under
1400
the insolvency provisions only where the employer is insolvent and therefore unable to pay.
Finally, I would mention the figure of £80 referred to in Section 64(5), which applies under the insolvency provisions of the Employment Protection Act 1975 to claims for arrears of pay, pay in lieu of notice and holiday pay. Given the close link between redundancy and insolvency it was natural to adopt the same weekly earnings limit in 1975. It makes equally good sense today to keep this in step with both redundancy payments and the unfair dismissal provisions, and here also we are proposing an increase to £100. It is estimated that the additional cost to the Redundancy Fund for the financial year 1978/79 of an increase in the insolvency provisions limit to £100 is approximately half a million pounds.
If I may sum up very briefly. The effect of the present order is to increase from £6 to £6·60 the monetary limit for guarantee pay, and from £80 to £100 the weekly earnings limit used for the calculation of a redundancy payment and for the purposes of the unfair dismissal and insolvency provisions of the Employment Protection Act 1975. These increases are submitted for noble Lords' approval, take full account of the statutory criteria laid down in Section 86, and will, I hope, commend themselves to your Lordships as being a reasonable outcome of the first statutory review of limits under that section. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1977, laid before the House on 14th November, be approved.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
5.20 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, has given us a brief and welcome hiatus between the problems of semi-aquatic rodents and those of broadcasting. The noble Lord's statement was very detailed. Indeed, I should really have liked to have had a copy of his statement in order to give it perhaps the detailed consideration it merits. It seems to me that in general what this order provides us with is an instance of indexation; of indexing the financial provisions of a particular piece of

1401
Government benefit to around 10 per cent. Does this indicate that the Government are beginning to look favourably in general on indexation as a method of fighting inflation? If so, will the noble Lord indicate what other dispositions of public money may be indexed?
I think that the noble Lord mentioned in his statement that the Chancellor is raising guaranteed payments above the general levels of price rises. But surely, unless I have mistaken him, this is not the case since these provisions are roughly, if my calculations are right, within the 10 per cent. general limit whereas actual price inflation is running at around 14½ per cent. The noble Lord mentioned top salaries and said that earnings have risen substantially since 1974. That is, of course, true of the higher working wages over £80 a week, if you like, but certainly not true of top salaries. We had in your Lordships' House yesterday my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter's Question on the salaries of heads of nationalised industries who, if I remember, were not even getting 10 per cent. as of yet.
I would ask the noble Lord not in respect of this order but in respect of its renewal at a later stage to ask the Chancellor to look at this in respect of redundancy payments again in the spring Budget, because at the present rate we shall have to look at it rather more than once a year. I understand that the noble Lord mentioned the Redundancy Payments Fund and said that 41 per cent., I think, was recoverable by employers. But is it not the case that employers have to contribute to the funding monies as well, and is this altogether fair?
If he could, I should like the noble Lord also to give us a notion of the overall estimated cost of the present order. I would this afternoon of course prefer to be debating how we could fight unemployment rather than how we are coming to learn to live with its effects. One of the disquieting features of our contemporary life is that we seem to be adjusting to inflation as well as trying to fight it, and learning to adjust to high levels of unemployment as well as trying to fight them.
Since in my view we shall not see unemployment below 1 million for a decade or so, and since the achievement of single-figure inflation, even if it does occur,
1402
will no doubt be hailed by the present Government as a triumph, I suppose that there is not much else that we can do other than adjust. Too many chances for a short and severe programme for fighting inflation have been lost, and too many soft options have been taken. We, on this side, do not oppose this order, except to say that its very necessity is an admission of how relatively badly we, as a nation, are doing in combating inflation and in combating the high levels of unemployment which inflation engenders.
5.25 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for the clear way in which he has sought to introduce this order. I think I now understand a little better the reasons for it having to do, as the noble Earl also seems to think, with the general concept of indexation. We had a lot to say in criticism of the Redundancy Rebates Act when it was before your Lordships earlier this summer. Of course we have noted with particular interest the increase in the limit on the amount of a week's pay for the purpose of calculating redundancy payment from £80 to £100. I shall not weary your Lordships by rehearsing the arguments that we adduced at the time for criticising the Redundancy Rebates Act except to say that one was that we felt it was not a reasonable use of the Redundancy Fund that it should effectively be used to reduce, as was the case, the public sector borrowing requirement.
I do not know whether it is an altogether fair question to put to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and I am sorry to say that I have not given notice of it to him, so I shall quite understand if he cannot answer it, but it would certainly be helpful to us to know, since at the time of the passage of the Redundancy Rebates Act there had been a substantial increase in the Redundancy Fund, how the balance in that Fund now stands, or how it will stand after effect has been given to this order.
As I understand it anyway, an effect of the order will be to increase the amount of contribution to be made by the Government to increased redundancy payments to be made by employers. In those

1403
circumstances, the strictures which we made at the time of the passage of the Redundancy Rebates Act do not, as we see it, apply. We are therefore content that this order be approved.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, there is one question which I should like to ask the noble Lord, and which I am afraid will display a great deal of ignorance on my part. He referred once or twice to insolvency. Can he refresh my memory in a sentence or two as to what happens in the event of 100 per cent. redundancy due to the employer either going into voluntary liquidation or going bankrupt?
5.28 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, in reply to the noble Viscount who has just spoken, this was a short, quick question. On the spur of the moment I cannot give him an adequate answer. I shall endeavour to have it in hand before the debate is finished. If we are not successful, I shall give it to him in the House's usual fashion.
The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, referred to indexation. I should like to clear up this position. The answer on indexation is that it is not indexation. The Minister has to have regard under Section 86 to, among other things, the general level of earnings. There is no general intention to use the index link. He referred to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking note of certain things. That note will be passed to my right honourable friend, but of course the noble Earl will not expect me to stand at this Box and try to answer for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is the last thing on earth that I should like to do at the present time.
So far as price inflation is concerned, to which the noble Earl referred, there is no attempt to keep in line with this because the Act expressly requires the review to bring increases of guaranteed pay in line with the general level of earnings. Guaranteed pay is in fact a form of pay and because it is expressed as an absolute sum there must be a device to raise it with pay.
As I expected, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred to the previous debate on the rebate order. I cannot at the moment give him the effect of these new
1404
provisions on the fund but I can tell him that, as at 25th November 1977, the fund's total was £24 million. As for the vexed question—and I appreciate it is a vexed question—of the 41 per cent. rebate, as I promised when the ' order was before the House, it will be reviewed. It has of course been operating for only three months. I can guarantee that there will be a review, but, as the noble Lord will expect, I cannot guarantee the result of that review.
Since speaking I have been given the figures of the total cost. The overall cost will be approximately £4·5 million on redundancy, and so on, and £3 million on statutory guaranteed payments at current levels of short time; on average, about £7 million overall. On the question of the rebate, it is true that employers provide the money for the fund, which, as I say, is in surplus to the tune of £24 million now, but to abolish the employers' contribution would be wholly against the basic concept of the scheme and there is no prospect of a change. The only possible prospect of any change is a review in due course and a possible upgrading to 50 per cent. or something of that order, but I am not making a forecast and to do so would be too dangerous at this stage. I hope I have covered most of the points that have been raised and, if I have not covered that of the 100 per cent. redundancy, I will have the matter looked into and send the noble Lord concerned an adequate answer.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TELEVISION AND RADIO
5.32 p.m.
Lord WILLIS Lord WILLIS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will set up a commission of inquiry to investigate and report on the beneficial effects of television and radio. My Lords, I wish at the outset to thank noble Lords who have put their names down to speak in this short debate and particularly to welcome to the list of speakers the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, and the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, who will be making their maiden speeches, which I am sure the House will listen to with enormous interest.
I have an interest to declare. I am a director of a commercial radio company

1405
and I also happen to be a television writer. Recently I have not been writing so many television series but have been concentrating on books. However, I have thought recently that I might try to get back into television and perhaps even star your Lordships' House. While I have been sitting waiting for this debate to begin I have been pondering on a few possible titles, such as Longford of the Lords, Harris of the Home Office, Peart of the Peers or, perhaps most sensational of all, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, Gentleman-at-Arms.
I have tabled this Question to try to redress the balance a little, because what upsets me as a professional working in television—I know it upsets many splendid professionals working in TV—is the fact that, whenever it is mentioned, it seems that the only word used in connection with it is "violence" and that when an inquiry is set up its only brief seems to be to study the relationship between television and the increasing violence in our society.
I wonder whether noble Lords could even guess at the number of research studies that have been undertaken into this theme—20, 30, 40 or even 50? If one includes the cinema, there have been no fewer than 360 studies in the last 45 years into the relationship between the screen and violence, all of them attempting to answer the question whether violence seen on the screen leads directly to violent actions by the viewer. Any wonder that the professionals in television sometimes think that the more positive aspects of their contributions to society are being overlooked?
I am not protesting that there is no problem. Nor am I saying there should not be inquiries. I am not even suggesting that everything is sweetness and light from the point of view of television. But I hope to show that there is a great deal of sweetness and light and that it appears to be overlooked. However, it is certain—this is the purpose of my Question—that there has not been one study directed to the proposition that perhaps there maybe a shade of a shadow of a chance that all the television we see may have increased the sum of human happiness, may have made many people more aware of themselves, may have increased the potential of a great number of people and made them happier. I have not heard of one report
1406
of this description, although there were aspects of the Annan Report which touched on the subject.
One other point on this aspect, because I think violence has had its innings. A Home Office research study which carried out an analysis of the 360 other
studies I have mentioned on the subject found they all led up the same road and to the same conclusion. That was that the possibility that violent actions seen on the screen will initiate violent action by the viewer is remote and, apart from very young children, is limited to a few unusual individuals. That was a summary of 360 separate studies into this subject.
As I said, I am not suggesting that television and radio have clean hands and that there should be no check on standards, but having said that, I have this proposition to put to the House: if it is said that television can affect the viewer in undesirable ways, may not the converse also be true? Is it not possible that it may also influence others towards positive good? And if there is no truth in that proposition, all I can say is that the many religious advisers who work for the media must be wasting their time because presumably they prepare their programmes in the very hope that they may influence people towards their idea of good.
I believe it goes a little further than that and that the people who focus only on the more sensational aspects of television—those who see only the dustbins and not the whole view—are doing a positive disservice, for to blame television for the increase in violence in our society and for the supposed decline in standards is far too easy because that diverts us from the task of tackling the evils of our society. We need to attack the real source of our problem and not build a scapegoat in the shape of a cathode ray tube or a transistor radio. Do I have to point out seriously to all the critics that the springs of violence flow from different sources, sources which have little or nothing to do with the television screen?
Television is not responsible for the decay of our inner cities, nor creates either the mentality or the property developers that have savaged our community. Television did not create the conditions which have led to the formation of such bodies as the National Front or the Provisional IRA. Television cannot be blamed for the

1407
existence of racial and religious prejudice. Television did not create 1½ million unemployed and inflation. Television did not create the sense of frustration and boredom which affects so many among the deprived majority of our young people and which drives a small minority of that majority to the extremes of hooliganism, vandalism and gang warfare. Television may reflect these things, but it did not create them and it should not be blamed for them.
We can solve these and other problems only by social action and by creating the social will to do so; by rebuilding the moral muscle of our people, and in this task television and radio should not be seen as the villain but as the ally and partner because it not only can play a vital and leading role; it is in fact doing so. It is doing an enormous amount to combat the kind of evils I have mentioned. I have collected evidence from all the television companies, not only in my lifetime but in the last week or so in preparation for this debate; and the mass of evidence has bowled even me over.
I will mention just one issue to your Lordships—that of unemployment. There is hardly a television or a local radio station which has not done magnificent work in this area. I can give your Lordships only a few examples in the time available. Capital Radio runs a programme called " Job Spot", which has helped thousands of youngsters in their search for employment. It has an enormous audience. Young people ring in, and they can go into the foyer of the Capital Radio studios. Thousands of them have been fixed up with work.
Westward Television has an even more impressive scheme, called "Just the Job", which is linked with the National Extension College at Cambridge. One thousand eight hundred people responded to Westward Television's programme. Fifty counsellors were appointed to advise the people who applied. Job hunting kits were issued to explain to young people, and to others, how to dress, how to apply for a job, how to speak up at an interview, and so forth. The result in terms of success exceeded even Westward Television's hopes.
Anglia Television staged a remarkable initiative with a programme called "Enterprise".
1408
There was the problem of Corby New Town, which is basically a steel town with massive unemployment and very little chance of further development. In association with the Corby Development Corporation, Anglia Television ran a competition to find small businessmen in the entire region who would go to Corby and open up small businesses to give employment. Hundreds of entries were received. It was an astounding depth of response. The matter was discussed in depth on television, and the prizewinner was given a free factory by Corby Development Corporation. Dozens of other small businesses are going into Corby as a result of that marvellous initiative. That same company, following a discussion on television, took four small businessmen abroad to test their export potential, and those four businessmen returned absolutely elated because they had captured a quarter of a million pounds-worth of export orders. That is the kind of thing that television is doing, and which it can do much more of, if we focus a little more on its positive advantages. When I say television I am using shorthand for television and radio.
In particular, regional television and local radio have a splendid record in the field of social help, and they have achieved a marvellous sense of identification with their communities. I have already mentioned Capital Radio. It has a scheme called " Help Line", which is open 24 hours a day, manned by six people. People ring up in the middle of the night saying that they are going to commit suicide, and they are held on the 'phone long enough to get the police around to them, or to talk them out of it. People come on the line with dozens and dozens of different social problems, and the girls taking the calls give them all the help and advice they need and direct them towards the various organisations.
BBC Radio Medway has given the freedom of the air to dozens of local associations, ranging from the social services to the chamber of commerce. It runs a regular Citizens' Advice Bureau of the Air, and a special Lost Pets Service. Radio Nottingham looked for, and found, illegal child minders. Radio Cleveland brought in, in one half hour, 150 volunteers to fight a moorland fire. Radio Cumbria found ewes for 400 orphaned lambs last spring.
The list goes on and on. It is real community service which is provided by television and radio. Only lack of time prevents me from extending what is an enormously impressive list. But I must mention one further initiative. This is the volunteer centre sponsored by the Home Office, which has a direct link with such programmes as " Reports Action", on Granada and " Respond", on Ulster Television. This is the first community action series to go out in Northern Ireland.
The BBC is also running series which focus on social issues, such as mentally handicapped children, and there is that marvellous series "Moving On", on the subject of illiteracy. I believe that this programme has recruited a quarter of a million former illiterates and put them in the way of learning how to read and write. These are marvellous programmes which stimulate people to voluntary action, and positively help the less fortunate. Thousands of people have come forward and been recruited into the voluntary organisations as a result of these programmes.
I should like to give your Lordships just one other statistic on another subject—crime. I refer here to a report from the Metropolitan Police. In 1975, 339 cases of actual crime were shown on television in "Police 5". In 152 cases (slightly under half), viewers came forward with evidence which was of positive value to the police—and that was according to the police. In 117 cases (about one-third) the police say that arrests came as a direct result of the help of the television viewers.
That is just a sample of the direct social action that can be stimulated by television and radio. But there is, of course, a deeper effect. On one level, the sheer entertainment and relaxation provided by television and radio is something which we all need, but which particularly benefits the lonely and the old, giving them a window on the world. I remember, in particular, what television meant to my mother in her last years. It brought her enormous comfort and pleasure, which she would have been denied 20 or 30 years previously. I am sure that we all know of thousands and thousands of people in similar circumstances who get sheer pleasure out of television. I am sure that all your Lordships, like myself, have moods in which
1410
you return home after a very hard day and do not want to do anything serious. You just want to lie back in an armchair and, in a way, let the television wash over you, and entertain you. In that respect, it is marvellous.
Television is a theatre, a concert hall, an art gallery, a music hall, a lecture room, a cinema, a sports stadium, a newspaper, a popular magazine. The effect that this fantastic medium has had on widening horizons can hardly be measured, but it must be of enormous significance. I should like to quote the Annan Report on this matter. It says:
"Arts programmes are not unique in evoking something more than the normal response when we sit down to look or listen to television or radio. Nature programmes, such as those made by the BBC's National Natural History Unit at Bristol, can enrich people's conception of life: as can BBC Television's 'The World about Us' and Granada's Disappearing World '. So, indeed, can programmes of men's lives and their work in the countryside, such as John Betjeman exploring East Anglian churches—and railways. Our response to life can be deepened by all sorts of programmes, such as the BBC television film 'Marek', which told the story of an unsuccessful hole-in-the-heart operation on a young boy; by some religious programmes … or programmes which give our knowledge of the world a new dimension, such as … Dr. Jacob Bronowski's ' Ascent of Man '…".
The Annan Report speaks also about the growth of natural history, and how this has enormously extended people's horizons and given them an opportunity to think about subjects which perhaps would not have come their way in any other way.
Let me talk for a moment about television and radio as a theatre. I mention particularly the BBC, but everything I say in this area applies equally to ITV. The BBC, for example, broadcasts about 500 hours of drama each year, including serious serials and single plays. About 140 hours of music programmes are also televised, including concerts, and some are broadcast simultaneously with BBC Radio 3. That is an enormous output.
Let me give your Lordships one example involving Scottish Television, which has done much to support Scottish Opera. Not only has it been responsible for establishing the Scottish Opera Company but it has now set it up in its own opera house. Southern Television has done much to support Glyndebourne, and indeed it has brought Glyndebourne before millions of people, instead of it remaining an entertainment only for the élite. It

1411
was estimated that it would have taken 1,088 completely crowded nights at Covent Garden to have reached the same audience as Southern Television did with one transmission from Glyndebourne of the Marriage of Figaro. AT V's "Edward VII" showed us something of the history of our country, and many other serials have explained our background and our past in a way in which other media sometimes cannot.
I am nipping through this because I realise that it is getting late. I could go on and on with some of the facts and figures that I have here. But I shall skip a little and turn briefly to children's programmes, because here, I think, lies the strongest criticism about television—that it makes children, or some children, violent. In fact, there is ample evidence to show that it also plays a very positive role with children. One characteristic of all the programmes that are being made by both channels for children today is that they set out to encourage individual thought and action on the part of the audience. About half the items in "Blue Peter" or "Jackanory" are actually suggested by the children themselves, who write in about 4,000 letters a week. When they are invited to join in helping others less fortunate than themselves, the response is overwhelming; and competitions to design a train of the future, to compose limericks, to make models or to design new clothes bring a large response. One competition for a " Keep Britain Tidy " poster drew 150,000 entries. It is not only entertainment for children, either. There is a great deal, as your Lordships know, in terms of education in programmes like "Search", where children are encouraged to investigate such subjects as old age, space exploration, the environment, adventure training and so forth.
In another area, all television and radio companies have a tremendous record of patronage of the arts. Here, the figures are quite staggering. The BBC has 11 permanent orchestras which employ 553 musicians; that is to say, it employs something like 30 per cent. of the full-time professional orchestral players in this country. This is a commitment greater than is required for the needs of broadcasting, but for various reasons the BBC do it, and all honour to them. There are no permanent light orchestras in this
1412
country other than those maintained by the BBC, so if the BBC did not exist there would be no equivalent to the Concert Orchestras, the Radio Orchestra, the Northern Radio Orchestra, the Midland Radio Orchestra and so on. In this way and through its support of the Proms, and so on, it has made an enormous contribution to our musical life.
As your Lordships can see, I am flipping through my notes because I realise that I am taking rather a lot of time, but I think I have said enough to show that there is a really positive side to the work done by television and radio. I think that what I have said shows that there is a need for a balanced inquiry into its work; not a one-legged, one-eyed inquiry which focuses on only one aspect, such as the relationship between television and radio and violence. I am proud to have worked in television for 30 years, and I am proud to have had this opportunity to speak for my fellow professionals on this matter, who, I can assure your Lordships, feel very strongly. I hope that the Government will consent to inquire into this matter, but, even if they do not, I hope that the record that I have read out will at least inspire them to do something which is urgently necessary; that is, seriously to consider giving the BBC an increased licence fee, and giving it for a longer period of years, so that they can plan ahead and one of our greatest institutions can continue to carry on with the splendid work that it is doing.
5.53 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Willis, is a frightening prospect. In fact, he encompassed so much in what I thought would be a brief but what turned out to be a prolonged and very vivid flash of his blue lamp that I think we have all been blinded by what he has had to say. It was so encompassing that, with regret. I could see that I was going to have to strike out some of the statistics which I thought were particularly effective, so my speech will be even more brief than it would otherwise have been. I think that perhaps that is rather a good thing, because we have a number of speakers tonight; and I, too, should like to say how much I am looking forward to hearing our two maiden speakers.
We must all thank the noble Lord for giving us this opportunity to debate the

1413
benefits of broadcasting. In fact, it gives us the opportunity to emphasise those very real benefits. I am not sure, I am afraid, that I can agree that we should have a commission of inquiry. I think we should take every opportunity to discuss these benefits, and I think we should go on taking every opportunity so that we can emphasise them to Her Majesty's Government and to all those people who, I am afraid, get me very annoyed—the " knockers". They " knock " anything they can get their hands on. In this connection I was glad to hear the noble Lord raise the question of violence, which I want to come on to a little later, because to some extent that is a bandwagon.
My Lords, my job takes me through Europe and to the United States of America, and I have seen the extremes of television. On the one hand, you have the absolute, utter, dreary drabness of the heavy-handed propaganda in Communist bloc countries, where there is no mixture. There may occasionally be the good thing that comes on but, overall, they are fed a diet. On the other hand, in the United States you have the extraordinary situation that, because it is so big, so much of it is so had. Furthermore, despite the fact that it is so big, you have to watch these bad programmes with a terrible picture as well, which ends up almost giving you a headache. So if I say that from my own experience we have the best broadcasting in the world, I think there are other noble Lords who would agree with me. I do not think I am being chauvinistic; I think this is a fairly reasonable assumption to make. It has certainly been said to me by friends in other countries, both in Europe and in America.
My Lords, I believe that we have the best, despite all the "knockers", for a number of reasons. We have the best because we have a mixture. A mixture does not mean that everybody is happy with everything. After the debate we had the other day, 1 suppose it could be said that if we had a fourth channel more people would be happy for more of the time, but I rather doubt it. I think we get a very good service; and although, perhaps, I do not like football as much as I like, say, motor-racing—and I certainly would not be watching that much football—I know that the majority of people do. This goes for cultural programmes. Some people want to watch
1414
them and some do not; but when it comes to cultural programmes overall, the mixture is there and a number of people benefit from it.
As I understand it, my Lords, the objectives of broadcasting as a whole are to entertain and to educate, and to give a general service. I think this is being done very adequately. The noble Lord referred to his mother and to when she was ill. I can refer to what a tremendous service it does for the lonely, as well as the sick. To old people it means everything in the world to have their television set. It is a companion, and I believe it is a companion which speaks to them, often in their own language; although sometimes, unfortunately, they are not quite aware of what it is and certainly do not agree with it. But that is one of the facts that we have to live with, especially with age.
I mentioned the shrill voices of criticism, and I am afraid that these were heard even among the members of the Annan Committee. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Willis, mentioning this when we had our debate the other day. I do not like that heavy-handed, Cromwellian attitude of some critics who say that you have got to give the people what they need as opposed to what they think they need. I think that you give them what they want, at the same time helping them, educating them and giving them benefits. I think that at the moment this is the case, and the longer and louder we say that the more important it is. I also take exception to the attitude, which has been mentioned, that television or radio, or what-have-you, is too important to leave to the experts. This is a high-handed, arrogant attitude; and if we did not have such jolly good experts as we do, we would not have the good broadcasting service that we have today. So I would hope that other noble Lords will dispose of that particular line of argument.
My Lords, the criticism of the service that comes over masks many of the achievements, and, to put it into perspective—I will not bore your Lordships with instances because the noble Lord, Lord Willis, covered these matters quite adequately—from my point of view one of the areas is the general awareness that, even though you may be living in the remotest part of the country, you are up

1415
to the minute on the news of what is happening in the Middle East. People who live in tiny villages, where the news used to take ages to reach them, are now as up to date as we are in Westminster. Also, it has increased the overall area of literacy, I believe; and it has done a tremendous service with current affairs programmes. Everybody now has the opportunity of being up to date.
On the cultural side, the noble Lord quoted some figures on musicians. I should like to highlight the incredible thing which the BBC have done with the "Promenade Concerts" which have done so very much for us here and which are listened to throughout the world. On the television side, I think that one ought to put the situation in perspective. As the noble Lord has said, one showing can outnumber so many performances. It has been shown that the Royal Shakespeare Company's Antony and Cleopatra performance on 28th July 1974 was seen by 1·7 million people as against all the performances throughout the period which would have reached only 0·8 million people. One showing can do so much. The same applies to the Merchant of Venice. It was seen by 2·7 million people compared with the combined figures for 1976–77 of only 0·83 million people. It does so much at one go. There is a high content of these cultural programmes which are put over in such a way that people do not switch off to something else; they actually watch.
I will not bore your Lordships with other figures but they are all here. You can see how much it has done for ordinary people to appreciate opera, ballet and everything they would not have had the opportunity to see; for it is an effort to come up to London and, perhaps, to Covent Garden, even if you can afford the price of the tickets which is astronomical. Broadcasting brings it within the reach of everybody.
Finally, I want to come on to one aspect about which all the "knockers" jumped on the bandwagon. It is the subject of violence. Probably violence can do harm. I am not saying that there is not a need for research, but I believe that people can read too much into a report—that of William Belsen—when only the conclusions were put out. I
1416
should say that I have been involved in research and I certainly should be too nervous to draw conclusions before I saw all the figures. It is, surely, a bit premature that everybody should scream about this before the full report is out. The full report will not be published until 1978. Let us keep it in perspective and see at the end of the day what it is and how the methodology runs. Not everybody agrees that the methodology is right.
Probably what I am about to say now will push Lord Willis's eyebrows into his hairline. I believe there is a need for further research. But I should like to say that I am not advocating 361-onwards of studies into violence; but I think that, rather than having a commission of inquiry, Her Majesty's Government should instigate, or assist in the instigation of, further research programmes which evaluate the overall effects of television—and I mean definitive studies; not small ones, not ones with questionable methodology, but studies which everybody concerned with research agrees would provide overall the sort of figures on which conclusions can be drawn. It may not come up the first time; it may require more refining before we get to a research which can give a true picture, but I believe that we ought to do this. The need is to get people's attitudes and the in-depth reasons for those attitudes and what are all the effects. It is not to be done just as research, which so often gives merely a surface reason. It is the in-depth reasons that we must all know about. It is in those areas, I believe, that we can start to take decisions about the future.
I hope that when the White Paper comes out as a result of the Annan Report we do not go rushing off to talk about commissions on broadcasting and all the rest. We have a good service. When you have a good thing you do not tinker with it. It is like a television set. The more you tinker with it, the more it will go wrong. We have something which is good. Let us just be careful about improving it instead of kicking it. Let us try to get some fine tuning so that it gets even better. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, when he replies, will give us some views as to whether Her Majesty's Government may take some action in terms of instigating some in-depth definitive research. I believe, with due

1417
respect to the noble Lord, that this will be of much more use than a commission of inquiry.
6.6 p.m.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I, too, will endeavour to be brief. This is a subject on which everybody is an expert. Even people who never watch any television are expert about it. People who say they have not got it, do not like it, will go on telling you for hours about programmes that they do not like. It is that kind of subject, on which each and everybody could say a great deal, and would like to. But we have to discipline ourselves a little. At the start, like the noble Lord, Lord Willis, I declare an interest. I have spent much of my life professionally engaged in broadcasting; in one way or another and, as some noble Lords know, for eight years I have written and presented a regular, almost daily, programme—an information service, a kind of Citizens' Advice Bureau of the air, for Granada Television in the Granada area. In addition, like the noble Lord, Lord Willis, I am a director of an independent broadcasting company and I therefore declare an interest.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for giving us the opportunity to look at this subject, but I am quite sure that he will not mind if I say to him at once that I am not going far with him in asking for any new commissions of inquiry. We have had enough commissions. It also seems to me that we do not need a commission of inquiry in order to demonstrate what surely is self-evident. It goes without saying that broadcasting, radio or television, over the years has given an enormous number of people a great deal of pleasure. To return to the words of the noble Lord's Unstarred Question, it refers to "the beneficial effects of television and radio". Let me assert at once, lest there are too many puritans present here, that I personally regard pleasure as beneficial. I do not think that many noble Lords here will suggest that television and radio have not given a great deal of pleasure to a great many people—and if they have done that, they have done something beneficial indeed.
I will try to be brief, and I will therefore restrict my words to two particular areas.
1418
I should like to talk about two areas in which broadcasting has been particularly helpful, and to underline what it has done in those two areas from my own personal experience and involvement. First of all, I want to say a word about what television and radio have done for the elderly. As a general practitioner, I have visited old people in their homes. I have done so for many years and I can say without fear of contradiction that the lives of many of these old people living alone have been utterly transformed by television. The days when all the lights were put out at nine o'clock and nothing else happened have gone. Many of these old people sit—they may not be learning much; I am not very bothered about that—and enjoy themselves watching television programmes until the last flicker of light disappears from the television screen; and then they go off to bed.
These are people who now feel involved in life again, in a way in which they were not. I know that they could read, that many went out and joined societies, did this or that, but there is no doubt that broadcasting, and, in particular, television, has changed in the most dramatic way the lives of many elderly people. The proof of that is to see the extent to which these people are utterly bereaved if and when there is a strike or an industrial dispute or something else deprives them of their television for so much as a day or two. Let us remember this is something which broadcasting has done for the elderly in our society—a valuable service to which we all should pay tribute.
I want to talk about television and radio as an important and crucial source of information in a country in which life is becoming ever more complex and confusing. This also concerns the elderly. When I talk about elderly people it is a fact that the complicated and elaborate network of machinery designed to give assistance to people in difficulties is something which the people who are in most need find the greatest difficulty in penetrating. It has been my experience, looking at the Welfare State over many years, that the people who get absolutely everything to which they could be conceivably entitled are very rarely the people who are in the greatest need. The people who are in the greatest need are those who have the greatest difficulty in finding out

1419
what is available to help them, where they can get it, and how to go about it.
We know that Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Security are worried about the take-up of benefits. One Minister in the Department said recently that in his area they had £300 million worth of benefits which were waiting to be claimed by the people for whom they were intended. It is not charity; very often this is money which they themselves have provided in the past through taxation and in other ways. It is not going out to them because they do not know about it. Nothing can remedy that kind of situation more than radio and television, particularly if done properly in an intimate and direct way to the people concerned so that they can be among those who understand what is going on and find out what to do about it.
I do not wish to criticise the Civil Service or the enormous range of leaflets which the Department of Health and Social Security put out, but they are not the most readable documents that one can find, nor are they easily understood by the people for whom they are intended. Perhaps that cannot be helped because the documents have to be correct. Television and radio can put these things over to people in an immediate and understandable way which can totally change the lack of take-up about which Ministers are complaining.
If I may underline my own experience, when I was involved in a series of television programmes explaining the role of the rent tribunal office—what the rent officer could do, who did what, and so on, and how to go to the rent tribunal officer with certain problems—on the day following one programme the rent tribunal office in Manchester had more callers than they had had in their whole history of 3½ years of existence. As they stated later, every single one of those people had a problem which he or she could have brought forward before. They had not done so because they did not know about the tribunals. There were leaflets but they had not seen them. There were organisations and bodies like the Citizens' Advice Bureaux to help them. But nothing can help people in those difficulties more than broadcasting. It is immensely encouraging to me to see the extent to which broadcasting stations up and down the country are beginning to
1420
turn their attention to social involvement of that kind and to being a genuine information service in the truest sense.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, has given many examples about this. I could give many more, both in television and radio companies. I am glad that he paid tribute to commercial radio companies because they have undertaken a social service in a very significant way. There are facts and figures to back this up and to show that they are getting home to an enormous number of people information which would otherwise pass them by. I underline those two elements of the benefits of broadcasting: the striking, dramatic benefits to the elderly in transforming their lives, widening their horizons, bringing them back into a kind of involvement with life which in the past without broadcasting they lost; secondly, a potent and important source of information.
I hope that in future discussions we will not preoccupy ourselves utterly with television to the exclusion of radio. Radio has a continuing role
which must be fostered carefully. It has one significant and outstanding advantage over television. Television has the difficulty that it has to compete for the attention of the viewer with the viewer's ordinary home surroundings, with children's homework or with the jobs which ought to be done, the washing up, or whatever it is. Therefore it has constantly to make an immediate impact in order to get hold of a person's attention. This limits the way in which we can do certain things.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, referred to drama. Many great plays have started with a slow, explanatory first act. They have later built up towards a climax in the final act. As the noble Lord knows well, you cannot do that on television. If you have a slow, explanatory first act, the viewers will switch to the other channel. Television, because it requires immediacy, has certain limitations. In addition, it does not have the kind of audience participation that radio broadcasting has. To listen to radio one has to visualise and take part. We should do all we can do to encourage radio and make the radio companies and BBC sound radio understand that they are not just the poor relations which gradually will be allowed to die off because they have been superseded. This is wrong. They have not

1421
been superseded. Radio broadcasting brings an element of audience participation which television broadcasting does not always bring. I hope that whatever we do for the BBC about licence fees or for the independent companies, independent radio or local radio, we remember that radio has a real place. It must be cherished, fostered and preserved. It must not be regarded as a somehow inferior and superseded communication which has been replaced by something better.
I have spoken for longer than I intended, but I hope the House will agree with me wholeheartedly that broadcasting in all its forms has brought about immense benefits. We must continue to allow it to do so. So far as violence is concerned, do as I do—switch off. Whether it does harm or good, I do not like it and therefore I do not watch it. If everybody else took the same attitude, we should have much less of it.
6.18 p.m.
Lord CRATHORNE: My Lords, the generous way in which your Lordships welcome maiden speeches has given me the courage to rise to my feet today. I can only hope that the ordeal is worse for me than it will be for your Lordships. Since I took my seat in your Lordships' House, I have been moved by the kind things that noble Lords on both sides of the House have had to say to me about my father; and the thought of attempting to follow in his footsteps is a daunting prospect. I will not take up much time this evening for two reasons: one is that I have agreed with everything that has been said so far; secondly, one of your Lordships recently explained that if a maiden speaker spoke for too long he ceased to be a maiden while still in the act of making his speech. I want to avoid that fate, whatever it may be.
Turning to the debate, I must first declare an interest as I am a director of a local commercial radio company in the North-East. I anticipated that there would be much talk of television today and I shall talk purely about local radio. I have been a firm believer in local radio ever since I spent some time in America, where there are an extraordinary number of radio stations covering an enormous variety of tastes and topics, and offering
1422
the listener an amazingly wide choice. I was delighted when local radio became a reality in this country and I quickly became involved in it.
The 19 independent commercial radio stations are proving extremely popular in this country, as your Lordships know. All I can say is that one hopes that the 18 million people who cannot yet receive local radio will be able to do so before too long. I hope that the question of extending the independent local radio stations will not be a difficult decision for the Government to take, as independent local radio is a real instance of public service without public expense. There are already 13½ million adults listening to local radio for an average of 12·4 hours a week or, to put it another way, adults in ILR areas spend more than 167 million hours a week listening.
I should like just to pinpoint some of the benefits which have resulted from local radio stations. We have heard some examples already, and I have chosen rather similar examples which emphasise the point. Radio is a marvellous companion: perhaps it has an advantage over television in that it goes with you in your car or when you do the housework; it has been of immense benefit to the old or to people with weak vision, to the ill, to the young. Indeed, virtually everyone uses and enjoys radio. It is a wonderfully intimate medium, with a sort of one-to-one relationship.
There are very practical examples of how local radio has acted not only as a companion and friend but as a life-saver. That has been touched on already, and perhaps I can give your Lordships a detailed example. In Newcastle, Metro Radio has been providing a service of help to listeners with personal problems. One day, a young woman telephoned the station to say that because she felt she could not face life as a single parent, with responsibility for a child only a few months old, she had decided to end her life. She asked Metro to look after the child—quite an interesting fact in itself. The director of the programme kept the young woman talking and managed to get her telephone number. The station immediately contacted the woman's doctor, who was then able to save her life, following an overdose of sleeping pills.

1423
Local radio has given a real sense of community, especially in such an area as mine in the North-East, which has been torn apart by successive local government reorganisations. Local appeals have been most successful. For example, in Manchester, Piccadilly Radio's Easter Appeal for disadvantaged children living in Greater Manchester brought in 8,000 toys. A programme designed to help Stockport District Council to fight vandalism resulted in 600 teenagers giving their support to the campaign.
From the outset, every ILR station has gone out of its way to involve itself deeply in the community. Just to give your Lordships some examples from my area, Radio Tees has supported and sponsored concerts and has helped the Durham Area Health Authority over campaigns on smoking, diet and food care, which led the Authority to review its policies on those matters. When there was a case of polio in Middlesbrough and a major vaccination campaign was required, Radio Tees invited listeners to obtain full details of vaccination centres and times, by phoning the station's phone-in number. Over a period of 48 hours, a Post Office recorder logged a total of 14,000 calls. An interesting combination of advertising and public service took place when ICI bought advertising in our area. That was to promote industrial safety, and they said it had resulted in a marked drop in the number of industrial accidents in ICI factories.
Turning to Swansea, Swansea Sound has established such a good relationship with steel workers in South Wales that during a steel industry dispute on at least one occasion the unions refused to start a news conference until the presence of the Swansea Sound man had been established. In Edinburgh, Radio Forth has actively helped the Employment Services Agency in running a job week particularly to help the disabled and school-leavers. Employers spoke about their requirements and job seekers talked about their hopes and needs. Afterwards, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that Radio Forth was entitled to blow its own trumpet over the success of the project, and the managers of job centres in Edinburgh were extremely pleased with the results.
Another unique facility of radio which has also been touched on is the fact that it
1424
can react instantaneously to any event. At Radio Tees, I am told that over 95 per cent. of the output is live 18 hours a day, seven days a week. This gives amazing flexibility. It is clearly very helpful for people to know about up-to-date traffic conditions and about the local news which may affect them and, indeed, also to know about special offers in the local shops which are advertised on local radio.
I could cite many other examples of the way in which local radio benefits each community but, for the reasons mentioned earlier, I shall not trespass further on your Lordships' time. I should like to end simply by saying that I hope it will not be long before there are more local radio stations in operation to serve those parts of the community which are not lucky enough to have them yet.
6.26 p.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, I am not usually lucky in raffles or ballots, but today I consider myself especially fortunate in that I have been drawn on the list in a position which enables me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, on his maiden speech. Like many others in this House, I served with his distinguished father in another place for many years where, as the noble Lord will know, his father was liked and respected by everyone on both sides of the House. I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord also because he has covered a theme in which I am especially interested. I had some responsibility in choosing the lucky 19 out of 64 applicants—it is probably true to say that the remaining 45 were very disappointed. However, if I may say so, he omitted just one thing: may I put it in for him. I hope that when the 20th is announced it will be Cardiff, which is in fact the only capital city without an independent local radio station. I am sure that the House has been delighted to hear what the noble Lord had to say and would like to hear him again as often as he wishes to address us.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Willis for initiating this debate, but I would hardly think it necessary to draw attention to the benefits of television and radio which, as all the speakers have proved so far, are generally accepted and understood. Nevertheless, in view of the

1425
oft-repeated comments which seem to attribute many of the world's troubles and ills to this section of the media, I think it is necessary on occasions to say something in defence of television and radio. The Acts and the Charter governing television require the broadcasting authorities to entertain, to educate and to inform. It is sometimes a little difficult to draw a line between them as to where one begins and the other ends, because some programmes encompass the whole thing.
In the area of entertainment, there is surely something for everyone: sport, drama, light entertainment, comedy and so on. I know from my own experiences that viewers often complain about too much sport, and I read in the paper today that, there is a possibility of television coverage from Australia of what I call "Packer's Pets". All I hope is that it does not coincide with some football; otherwise we shall have some more trouble. I hope that it will be fitted in at some other point. In addition to sport, of course, critics frequently complain about the drama and about the comedy. The allegation made with regard to sport is that it is biased. It is said that the drama is too permissive and, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has mentioned, that there is violence running through the whole thing.
The Acts require that the broadcasting authorities should have in mind programmes which "are not offensive to public feeling." That really is a formidable requirement, for one asks oneself: what is public feeling, or what is public taste? I know what I as an individual believe is public taste, but I am quite sure that in any gathering there will be as many interpretations of good taste as there are individuals trying to define it. However, I must make the point that one can choose the theatre which one goes to, and the play which one sees. One can also choose the book which one reads. But television programmes are in the home without very much choice, other than the three programmes and the on/off switch. I have frequently been told that one can use the on/off switch but I should think that nothing is calculated to cause more disharmony in any home than the use of the on/off switch, especially when some other members of the family want to look at a certain programme.
1426
The requirement to determine public taste, and what is or is not offensive to public feeling, is extremely difficult. Do we really want to return to the morality and the sociological conditions of a century or more ago? I know that some will certainly say, "Yes". Perhaps those days were very moral on the surface, but there were appalling conditions underneath—gin shops, abject poverty and every kind of depravity, such as child prostitution and the like. Those were the good old days of 100 or more years ago. They were certainly not more moral, in the true sense of "morality", than are the present days.
How frequently do we hear in this Chamber—in fact, I think I heard it last week—that television is a considerable contributory factor to the current wave of violence in Northern Ireland? Unfortunately, many people sincerely believe this to be the case; but there is very little proof that television or radio is a contributory factor to violence at all. Research has been mentioned and I know that the Independent Broadcasting Authority, as it now is, has spent over the years more than £350,000 on such research, most of it academic research in one university or another. But one asks oneself: What other research is there that can assure objectivity and lack of bias? In, I think, the University of Leicester there is a department which has done a considerable amount of work in this direction, but the end result of all the research mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, is at best inconclusive.
I remember reading one report—I have forgotten which, and I have read most of them—which said that it is clear that television affects a child who is subnormal. I do not think it needed a great deal of expense and research to come to that conclusion, because if the poor child starts off subnormal he is likely to be much more affected than the average child. What worries me is that if, without any definite knowledge and simply by voicing personal opinions, one attributes to the young people of today violent and permissive behaviour, then, unfortunately, many people will believe that to be true. I hope that no one in this House would classify the majority of young people today in that field of permissiveness or violence.

1427
In the same field, one should also ask oneself: Is not all drama offensive to someone? Is not King Lear, and other parts of Shakespeare's work, offensive to many people? Is not all news coverage objectionable to someone? Are not documentary and information programmes offensive to someone? Of course they are; but one has to strike a balance and, with the best will in the world, whether it be through academic study or some kind of gallup poll, psychologists and sociologists cannot come up with any definitive answer to the question: What is the effect of television and radio on young people?
In fact, plays are edited and amended. It is strange, but it is a fact which I admit, that if I saw a play in 1967—at that time I was chairman of one of the broadcasting authorities—and felt that something should come out, we took it out. But I am fairly sure that if I saw the same play today I would not hold the same view about it. Have I changed? Probably I have, and I think that most of us have. Therefore, I would emphasise that the broadcasting authorities, the programme directors, the writers and the producers are not evil people with way-out views, endeavouring to corrupt our own young folk. They are all genuinely trying to do a reasonable job, which I believe they succeed in doing. Standards have changed over the years, many would say for the worse; others, equally vociferously, would say for the better. I am sure that in this field every man and every woman is an island.
Still on the question of violence, may I respectfully suggest that if there are noble Lords—and I believe that there are some—who feel that television and radio is a contributory factor, they should read some of the nursery rhymes from their childhood days, Hans Andersen and the Brothers Grimm, or attend a pantomime at Christmas time, when the principal boy puts the question to the children in the audience: "What shall we do with the bad man?" She will be told in no uncertain way: "Cut off his head", "Boil him in oil", and so on. Of course this has gone on through the ages. It is not something which started with television and radio.
May I quote from a speech by a former Home Secretary, who said:
"I have lately obtained the opinion of a number of chief constables, who declare with
1428
almost complete unanimity that the recent great increase in juvenile delinquency is, to a considerable extent, due to the demoralising cinematograph films, and there has been evidence with respect to films of other objectionable types which leads to the conclusion that the present censorship arrangements are really not quite adequate".
The former Home Secretary was Mr. Herbert Samuel, in the year 1916. We have not discovered anything when we attribute some of the ills to television and radio. If we care to go back, were not the first cheap newspapers, when they became available to everyone who could afford them, equally blamed for everything that was happening in those days; and so, too, with comic papers and so on? One could go on, but perhaps I should get back to the subject of the beneficial effects of television and radio, having taken what I hope is defensive action.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is arguing that television simply does not have any effect on the morals of the country? I am not asking whether it has a good or a bad effect. He obviously thinks that it has a good one, but is he saying that it does not have any effect?
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, I am certainly not saying that it does not have any effect. What I am saying is that the general view that television programmes make a contribution to violence, permissiveness and so on, is not true. It has an effect; it is bound to do so. Otherwise, why would people advertise on television? But it does not have what is generally thought to be an ill effect.
On the subject of beneficial television, I have said a word or two about entertainment and I would now draw the attention of the House to documentary programmes and investigational journalism. That is something else which is occasionally criticised as being quite wrong. Some of the documentaries are acclaimed throughout the world as excellent. They have already been mentioned by the noble Lord opposite, but one could mention a good many others—for example, the wild life series "Survival", or David Attenborough's "Journeys", or Wynford Vaughan Thomas's "Castles of Wales". One could go on and on. These documentaries are excellent. Occasionally, however, one encounters the criticism that the programmes in the field of

1429
investigational journalism, as they are generally called, are biased and lack balance. In the first place, usually they are excellently produced. I am convinced that they have uncovered many sociological and industrial ills, but they certainly do not please everyone, especially those who are being investigated. Nevertheless, I agree that this type of programme must be most carefully researched and balanced before transmission. In the last resort, there are always the laws of libel to handle the position.
In the realm of news coverage, one buys the newspaper that contains the views which generally coincide with one's own—or, in these days, the pictures one wishes to see. However, one recognises that, in the main, a newspaper has a political slant of one kind or another. On the other hand, television and radio coverage is required to be fair and unbiased, and generally it is. One hears very few criticisms about news coverage on television.
My Lords, I have spoken for too long. However, as I said at the beginning of my speech, the beneficial effects of radio and television are there for millions of our population to see and to hear. There are some people and organisations which do not accept that there are any such benefits. One knows, regretfully, that there are many people—I hope not too many—who have not moved very far away from the burning of books era of some 20 years ago. I am thankful to my noble friend for introducing this debate. However, like the noble Lord who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, while I feel that additional research is necessary I implore my noble friend not to proceed in the direction of another commission of inquiry, because the television and radio industry has suffered enough.
6.43 p.m.
Lord SWINFEN: My Lords, may I beg the indulgence of the House on the first occasion that I rise to address it. I do so with considerable diffidence because over the past few months it has been obvious that everybody here knows far more than I do about every subject. The same is true tonight. I agree with everything that has been said so far, particularly regarding the educational
1430
programmes on television and radio. I must admit, however, that I have understood this Unstarred Question to have a much wider meaning, for it contains the words:
"report on the beneficial effects of television and radio".
If we did not have radio and television today, I believe that Heathrow Airport would come to a grinding halt. Without television and radio, the communications which are necessary to keep large aircraft flying around the world would stop; so to a very large extent would trade. Television can be used as a teaching aid in our universities, hospitals and technical colleges, particularly in situations where the machinery for scientific experiments and carrying out medical operations allows only a limited number of people to see what is happening. The use of television means that very many more students can see what is happening at the time, and when it is combined with videotape the same operation or experiment can be shown to other students at other times. In medicine, where rare, difficult and particularly dangerous operations take place, I should have thought that this was of considerable advantage.
In addition, television systems can be used by the Metropolitan Police for monitoring the road traffic throughout London and for preventing the jams which used to occur in years gone by. These systems have also been used very effectively in Northern Ireland for bomb disposal and have saved a large number of lives. This is because the officers, who so bravely deal with these bombs, can have a good look at them in a number of cases without approaching them. Without television, far more men would be killed.
Apart from dealing with dangerous explosives situations, underwater cameras can be used on the seabed when underwater engineering is taking place, in order to make life easier for engineers and divers. In conjunction with radio, engineering experts on the surface, who are not trained to work underwater, can guide divers about what to do, thus making then job very much more safe and satisfactory. With that slight digression from the broadcasting aspects of radio and television, I should like to thank noble Lords for listening to me.
6.47 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, the pleasure falls to me to congratulate the noble Lord who has just spoken, particularly since he has drawn our attention—and I suspect he will be the only noble Lord to do so—to the far wider implications of broadcasting and telecommunications. I congratulate the noble Lord for bringing to our notice the wider use of the marvellous medium of broadcasting. His knowledge came through even during so short but so brilliant a speech. I hope that the House will have the pleasure of hearing him on many occasions.
May I also offer my congratulations to the other noble Lord who made his maiden speech today. He mentioned that radio is an intimate medium and referred to the car. My son-in-law, who is a doctor, once said to me that when he turns on the radio in his car other people get music but he gets his mother-in-law. I told him that he was lucky!
May I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for giving us the opportunity to speak on his Unstarred Question. It was introduced, as usual, in wonderful style. I was only sorry that he cut out a great deal of his speech, because I am quite sure that we should have been happy to hear all of it. I was very glad to hear that a number of ewes appear to be listening to broadcasts and are adopting orphaned lambs. It is heartening to know that our dumb friends also enjoy broadcasting. The prospect of several sheep wearing earphones is delightful. I am delighted to be able to endorse all that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has said.
All methods of communication suffer constantly from "knocking". Newspapers are very rarely mentioned in this House, except when people wish to criticise them. At present I am involved in a campaign to try to prevent theft, and it has brought me into even closer contact with local radio and television centres. One cannot fail to work closely with them without one's admiration increasing. So far as I can see, there is no attempt to cut the message we wish to put over. Indeed, they urge you by questions and further interrogation to expand on any particular points. Working as I have been with both independent companies and the BBC I find they are very open-minded, if you have
1432
any other suggestions to make, particularly on documentary journalism, and one can only have for them the highest praise for the responsible way in which they try to carry out their difficult task.
However, as several noble Lords have said, it is impossible to please everyone. My own mother looks at television or listens to radio all day long and sometimes complains that she can find nothing new. As I pointed out to her, it is unlikely that anybody could constantly devise something new for 24 hours of every day. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said, radio and television have opened doors to those who are housebound and to those unable to communicate in other ways, and if it were for that alone we should be eternally grateful. I am glad I live in this century, particularly as a middle-aged woman—and I intend to remain middle-aged until I die; it is much more convenient.
I should like particularly in this debate to emphasise local radio, whether independent or controlled by the BBC. They have a particular role which I would ally to the local paper. Local papers and local communication media generally always promote great loyalty and people listen and look much more carefully to the things which are of immediate concern to them than to matters considered to be of general interest. I wonder why our politicians think that, if you go canvassing, people will talk about devolution or direct elections in Europe. I find that most people will talk to you about their children, their homes, their jobs and what is happening in their area. People who send messages through the radio and television are often much more in tune with what ordinary people want than some of the people who should know. I find that the national networks do not evoke the same response as local radio. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said, if you have a phone-in on local radio you get a complete follow-up, whereas if you have it on the national network you may or you may not get a reaction.
Regarding religious broadcasts, I remember once taking part in a religious phone-in programme very late at night when you wonder if people are looking. I was somewhat amazed on the following morning to discover the number of people who seemed to have been avidly

1433
watching the screen and listening to the message I was putting over. This rather cheered me because I thought that some kind of a Christian revival was taking place, until my brother informed me that he had seen me. When I said, "I had no idea you looked at religious broadcasts" he replied that he did not but it came at the end of an international soccer match. So it seemed to me that juxtaposition of programmes was something that might be looked at.
I have a very small point on which I should like to ask the help of the Minister. I have not given him notice but this seemed to me a good opportunity to introduce it. When I went to a local broadcasting station recently, I received rather more attention than one normally gets. The red carpet was out; drinks were provided and I was received with great ceremony. In the course of conversation it became obvious why this was so. This particular broadcasting station thought I was a member of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. Having assured them that they had the wrong Baroness, I decided that perhaps I could help them after all. They brought to my notice a point which, though small, affects a number of broadcasting stations, namely, the working of the independent Broadcasting Authority Act in relation to the fact that broadcasting must not be used by one side or another in an industrial dispute. Of course we would not question this; this is quite proper, but companies, while being entitled to send a return to work message where a strike is ended, and obviously there is no industrial dispute, are not able to send out a message while an industrial dispute is in progress.
For example, a very large car concern, which shall be nameless, recently wanted an announcement to go out covering a works meeting to endorse the terms agreed by the management and shop stewards. The station had to refuse this because of the Act. This situation can be duplicated on many occasions, and I would suggest that this is a very narrow interpretation of the section of the Code which reads:
"No advertising may have any relation to any industrial dispute".
I am sure we would not question it, but equally we all want to see our means of communication used by the greatest number for the greatest good, and we all want to see that strikes are brought to a
1434
successful conclusion at the earliest possible moment. In my view, communication must be made as available as possible and used in its widest sense, and I would hope that the Minister would use his very wide powers. By merely changing the wording of a Schedule he can, by regulation, make it possible for this to be done.
While repeating again that we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for introducing this Question, I would add that if a commission could be set up which would not cost money I am sure that many people would cheerfully give their services. For a change, let us have a little glamour attached to the "goodies" rather than to the "baddies".
6.57 p.m.
Viscount CRAIGAVON: My Lords, I shall try to be brief at this hour. I was partly stimulated to make my last contribution to your Lordships' House following a programme on London Weekend Television in which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, took part. Whether any benefit was derived from my contribution is another matter. May I also add my congratulations to the two noble Lords on their excellent and accomplished maiden speeches. They have obviously done a lot of research on the subject. May I advise them to keep the literature which they may have acquired because I am sure that in 20 years' time, if we are all still here, we will be having similar debates on broadcasting. If they want to follow any example in addressing your Lordships' House they can do no better than listen to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who today, as always, was a pleasure to listen to as well as being very persuasive. The catalogue of programmes which he and many other noble Lords have mentioned made me wish—contrary to usual wisdom—that there were not the various restrictions on repeats. It is certainly worth reminding ourselves of the high standards against which we judge broadcasting, and in particular the BBC. It is worth repeating the opening sentence of the Annan Report's chapters on the BBC:
"The BBC is arguably the single most important cultural organisation in the nation".
When we are told of the extent to which children watch television, the formative cultural influence on them which it provides is incalculable.

1435
I want to talk mainly about the Katz Report, but first I should like briefly to mention violence, which hardly features in that report. As Lord Willis and others have shown, the argument about violence is a very difficult one. As has been said, research has not come up with any definitive answers and we are forced to rely largely on intuitive reactions, which must differ even on some of our most central beliefs. It is not just in broadcasting. After many centuries we still do not really know what is the effect of witnessing the violence in King Lear for example, nor can we really assess the large effects of watching Tom and Jerry, or of the delightful but extraordinary goings-on of Kermit the Frog. I know there may be plenty of queries on all this but very much less agreement. It seems to me that there are large areas where we shall always be relying on intuitive judgments and where controversy would seem to be inevitable. That is not a defeatist point; I am merely suggesting that we should be modestly realistic in what is attempted in research.
I should now like to turn more directly to the Question on the Order Paper and talk about the problems of investigating the beneficial effects of broadcasting. Can I say that I have had some training in social psychology and that one of the first and most salutary lessons one learns is the sheer difficulty in establishing significant causal connections in even the most simple experiments. Thus I am not too optimistic that any of the more general benefits (or disadvantages) of broadcasting can in principle be quantified precisely. As I have said, it is difficult enough to agree on the effects of an isolated factor like violence alone.
The Katz Report, which was published by the BBC at the beginning of this year (to give it its full title it is called Social Research on Broadcasting: Proposals for Further Development), seemed to me to be an excellent and honest initial step in a direction which at this stage one can only hope will be fruitful. The aim of the BBC in proposing a broadcasting research trust, with the support and encouragement of the IBA, is to carry out some of the projects suggested in the Katz Report. Establishing the credibility of the trust, and both general and academic acceptance of its results, will be a difficult
1436
task. The BBC intend a certain distancing from themselves, to ensure the trust an independent research policy. I hope they err on the side of too much independence, and that independence is firmly declared and seen to exist right from the start.
To that end, and also to increase its financial strength, I understand that attempts are being made to international-lise the trust; if that is successful, the enterprise will be less susceptible to passing fashion and economies. Having said all that about how I hope it is launched ultimately the trust will be judged by the results it produces, and rightly so. I hope it will be successful, but I think one of the most difficult tasks will be the formulating of the right questions. My experience in social psychology—although I know that that is only one aspect of media sociology—makes me sceptical whether some of the most interesting questions about broadcasting are susceptible to the sort of answers we would like. Academic talk of more sophisticated methodologies and sharpening of analytical tools can only take one so far.
Finally, one step that is particularly urgent, following the establishment of the trust, is for all broadcasting authorities to agree on the Annan recommendation about a single combined method of basic audience measurement. The organisations' research creditiblity is regularly damaged when, for example, it seems that both BBC and ITV claim over 50 or 60 per cent. loyalty from the same audience over Christmas, or similar logically impossible conflicts over sporting events. I think the noble Lord, Lord Annan, recommended that this bit of common sense should be implemented at once, and I hope that "at once" in broadcasting will be quicker than it is in politics.
7.5 p.m.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able at once to refer to the two maiden speeches which we have heard; their lucidity and their knowledge-able background to the subject of this debate seem to me to be the most remarkable evidence at this juncture of the value of the hereditary system. I hope we shall hear both speakers again; I am sure we shall, and we shall listen to them with the care with which we have listened to them today.

1437
Everybody has thanked the noble Lord, Lord Willis, as I do, for introducing this debate, though what in fact he meant by his Question defeated me. It was not until he unfolded his speech—and as Lady Phillips said it was a pity he had to leave out some parts—that I saw he was using this very useful procedure we have in this House, the Unstarred Question, to introduce a matter of real importance at fairly short notice, in a way which enables it to be approached from many angles.
I am inclined to agree with my noble friend Lord Redesdale. I cannot really see at this moment the object of a Commission, certainly until we have had a White Paper based on the Annan Report; indeed, Lord Willis said, "Even if we do not have that, let us give the whole thing a lot of thought". I am going to go further than that. I came with no prepared speech because, as I said, I could not understand what he was getting at, but now I know and it is thrilling. The "box" seems to me to be taking the place of the "auld fireside". It seems to be the focal centre of so many households today. It is so absolutely wonderful. I suppose I am quite the oldest Member of your Lordships' House taking part in this debate. I remember my father, who died when I was 14, with his zest for living, his zest for information and for knowledge. I find myself in my old age, over and over again, when I see some magnificent programme—particularly a travelogue or an explanation of some engineering problem or the like—saying to myself, "By Jove, if my father could only have seen this he would not have believed it". I remember buying my first radio in India in the middle 'twenties. When I first went out to India in 1920 we still had to rely for our news and the like on the mail once a week, or the telegraph. The air-mail did not begin until about the same time as the wireless. Now we take so much of this extraordinary development for granted that we seem to overlook the sheer wonder of the thing. This has been very well brought out by the noble Lord who introduced the Question.
I am smiling because if there is ever bickering between myself and my wife it is because I say, "My dear, you have missed the weather". Nobody has mentioned the weather; I do not think
1438
Lord Willis did. It is a wonderful service for a gardener, sportsman, fisherman, traveller, motorist. It is one of the most remarkable things that occur. However, let us leave it at that; I do not want to take long.
I have a specific plan. I am not going to refer to violence or to permissiveness. I think there is too much violence. I think the violence sometimes is sadistic and need not be. On the other hand, sometimes it is not really true to life, in that there is not the awful mess and horror of the real thing. So I will leave that and turn to the radio, to which the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, referred. It is a wonderful thing, as Lord Winstanley said. I confess to your Lordships that one of my favourite programmes is "Scottish Country Dancing" at 6.15 on Saturdays. I set aside the following three-quarters of an hour for cleaning my boots and my leatherwork and the like, while I picture myself dancing in my kilt.
I am not altogether sure that we do not want a Commission. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, will remember that I have for years been on about the question of reporting Parliament to the people. I go on and on about it to such an extent that I sometimes think that I must be barmy. However, if, as I have said, the box is the focal centre of the home and if, as I believe, Parliament and its proceedings are very important to everybody, am I quite barmy if I say that, taking all the benefits which radio and television provide—remembering that their function is to inform as well as to entertain—they also have a social function in connection with Parliamentary Government and Parliamentary democracy, the way in which we live and the way in which we build our Parliamentary work? In my view it is necessary for someone to consider this aspect.
If any Commission is to be produced at all, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will consider—although I do not suppose it is a possibility—whether some wiser heads than mine could be put together to see whether I am barmy, or whether there is a deep-seated problem with all this entertainment, information and everything else flowing from these wonderful machines. Ought

1439
there not to be a provision in every franchise to every broadcaster—I do not include the local people because the local radios do very well as regards keeping people informed about local municipal and political affairs—to deal with this matter?
On the broader issues, I believe that Clause 13(2) of the Licence and Agreement, which lays down the obligation as regards BBC radio for independent journalists to report the proceedings of both Houses day by day, should apply to every franchise: BBC television, BBC radio and the IBA. I say that because, if it is not an obligation upon commercial radio, then how can it recover the money? Every minute means money. In order, when Parliament is sitting, to provide "X" minutes per day on this service, it means so much advertising time lost. That is a factor which requires to be looked into.
This has been a fascinating debate and I look forward to hearing the other speeches which are to be made. If anything has come out of this debate, I seriously believe that the authorities and people generally should consider whether, if we do not provide for information about Parliament on this universal medium, we can blame people if they sneer at politics. Of course, noble Lords can say: "They only have to look at us to realise that we are hopeless". However, it does not really work out like that. I believe that something of this nature would be wise and prudent. Not to have it might find us very much the losers in the years to come when we realise that, thanks to all this wonder, the day may come when people will hardly be able to read or write.
7.14 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, I should like to join with other Members of the House in congratulating the two noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches today. I agreed with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, said about local radio. We need far more of it and I very much hope that my noble friend who will answer for the Government will give some indication that we shall get some more. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, brought a great and wide knowledge to the debate for which we thank him.
1440
It gives me great pleasure to support my noble friend Lord Willis in the line of argument which he has presented to the House this afternoon. In the field of professional writing my noble friend is a statesman of the first rank and his voice is
listened to with great respect by everybody who appreciates honesty, directness and experience. I speak on behalf of all the professionals who deeply appreciate what he is doing for us. Our country is unduly restrictive in its attitude to the arts and to entertainment. I want to support my noble friend Lord Willis in his efforts on their behalf.
I should like to say in parenthesis that it is a very great disappointment that the Government have not yet seen fit to accept the Public Lending Right Bill of my noble friend Lord Willis—a measure of justice for writers associated with my noble friend Lord Willis and above all the admirable Mrs. Brophy and Miss Duffy. The members of the trade union of which my noble friend is the president are gravely disappointed by the Government's attitude to this matter.
I turn now to the matter immediately under discussion, but which is closely related to my previous point, because it concerns the incomes of the professionals who are engaged in the field of entertainment and the arts. I am referring to the beneficial effects of their work. We must remember that in discussing this matter we are discussing the standard of life and work of the thousands of people engaged in this industry: writers, actors, journalists, producers, administrators and technicians. Moreover, our policy as a nation in the provision of radio and television has been deeply restrictive and, in being so deeply restrictive, it has seriously restricted the employment possibilities and the earnings of the professionals in this area. When writers realise that they will not get public lending rights either, I think that they are justified in becoming a little bitter.
The attitude to entertainment seems to me to be a paradox. Radio and television are a major growth industry in which it is widely said we lead the world. It is, for one thing, a very large export industry, as the advertisements of the noble Lord, Lord Grade, have recently reminded us. Our economy is not yet in such good shape that we can afford to handicap a growth industry unnecessarily. How do we handicap this industry? We do it by limiting the

1441
hours of transmission. Why do we limit the hours of transmission? In my view, it is because as a nation we take an excessively authoritarian attitude to what listeners should hear and what viewers should see. This is usually called a concern for high standards. Of course, we are all concerned with high standards. We are all keen on good things.
I do not necessarily share all the self-congratulatory views that have found so much expression in the debate. How does the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, possibly prove the proposition that our radio and television are the best in the world? Does he speak Swedish, Swizza Deutsch or Dutch? He may speak all those languages, but I think it unlikely. However, we shall take the will for the deed. We shall assume that ours is a fairly good service if not necessarily the best in the world. I am prepared to defend the proposition so often argued that our standards are high, but I am inclined to wonder whether we have not become excessively defensive for fear of lowering the standards, and thus have restricted ourselves to an ever-dwindling cycle of transmission which unnecessarily restricts this industry, which is, after all, only 50 years old.
Lowering standards is another way of giving people what they want. I spend a great deal of time at the Covent Garden Opera House, as does the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who is chairman of the important committee which has recently reported. I do not see why, however, because I like going to the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, I should stop others from going to the Palladium. My submission is that the beneficial consequences of radio and television, even when they are lowering standards, far outweigh the disadvantages. The beneficial consequences may be very briefly listed, and I shall list them briefly because ether noble Lords have listed them at some length and with great force, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
The first, of course, is simply sheer enjoyment. People like watching and listening to entertainment, sport, panel games, classical music, the news and current affairs. There are few, if any, reasons why they should not have their wishes respected to have as much as they want of these benefits. There have been attempts to show that standards in all these
1442
fields of enjoyment have risen. I should have thought that the evidence is strong that standards have, indeed, risen during the past 50 years. However, I would submit that for purposes of the argument it is not necessary to show that they have risen. On ordinary utilitarian principles it is sufficient to show that people are enjoying themselves, as the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, pointed out. I see no adequate reason to question their judgment, provided, of course, that there are not superior principles at stake—for example, the avoidance of pornography and unnecessary violence.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to be involving himself in a series of contradictions. At one moment he said that he did not mind if the standards were lowered. Presumably he meant moral and aesthetic standards. At another moment he said that he would not want pornography, violence or such-like. Perhaps he would clarify the position.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, I should be delighted to clarify it. My position is perfectly simple. Aesthetic standards and broad moral standards are matters of individual judgment and I do not particularly mind what those standards are. I know what my own standards are and I am concerned about them. It seems to me that there are certain absolute moral standards in the areas of pornography and violence to which the whole nation must adhere. However, I respectfully submit to the noble Earl that those standards are fairly limited and that we should be extremely careful before we become too authoritarian in laying down what our fellow citizens should or should not enjoy. As Bernard Shaw once pointed out, different people have different tastes.
That brings me to my major and final point. In striving to raise standards, the period and scope of transmissions of broadcasts have been limited to a quite extraordinary extent in this country compared to the situation existing in other countries. Of course, this limitation has its origins in the financial difficulties of the BBC, to which my noble friend Lord Willis most eloquently drew attention. The BBC has an enormous range of television and radio networks—almost all

1443
of them now being curtailed through shortage of finance. I share my noble friend's very strong hope that this shortage of finance will shortly be remedied in the proper fashion.
However, in order to preserve the BBC's position, the hours of transmission by other authorities have been limited. Much as I admire and am grateful to the BBC, I wonder whether this restriction on the other authorities is wise or, in fact, is in the public interest, which I have loosely defined on ordinary utilitarian principles as the enjoyment of the great majority of our fellow citizens.
In the first place, the restriction on hours limits the enjoyment of people. Why should elderly people have to go to bed at 11.30 just because the television broadcast closes down? Why should it not go on later? Why should London be the only major capital in the English-speaking world without an all-night classical music station? Why cannot we have all-night movies?— as they do in the major cities of the United States. The limitation on people's choice seems to me to be indefensible.
The argument which is presented for this limitation in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is one to which my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich referred in the debate on the Annan Report. He said that the expansion of television and radio, even if it is done by commercial stations, entails public
expenditure and that therefore, in the present economic circumstances, it is deleterious. That argument is mistaken. I happen to know—because I started this particular hare in a speech that I gave to the Royal Television Society in September 1975 at Cambridge—that it rests on a false assumption, of which I have only recently thought; namely, of a constant real national income, which I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree is a defeatist and unacceptable proposition. Therefore, that argument is false and falls.
The restriction on hours of transmission also limits quite unnecessarily the earnings of professionals in the broadcasting professions. Further—and this is very important—the limitations on freedom of expression are potentially and actually extremely dangerous. With our limited
1444
range of hours and networks and the fact that virtually all serious radio is in the hands of the BBC, a handful of bureaucrats in the BBC and the major network companies in fact have far too great power to limit who shall broadcast on what. I say no more than that. I think it is very dangerous in a society where constitutional democracy is under threat. I am convinced that the positive contribution of radio and television to our culture has been and is enormous, and I plead with my noble friend on the Front Bench to open up the air-waves, to increase the licence fee and to set commercial radio and television free from their limitation on hours and the number of their stations.
7.26 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, let me begin, as did my noble friend Lord Vaizey, by expressing my own congratulations and, indeed, the congratulations of the entire House to the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Crathorne, who today made their maiden speeches in this debate. We regarded those speeches as being of outstanding merit and we very much look forward to having the opportunity of hearing the noble Lords address us again. It is with particular pleasure that I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, who is the son of a most distinguished father and who also, if I may say so, raised a number of issues to which I should like to refer at the outset.
One was the position of local radio. I shall return to that in a moment. But certainly since I have had at the Home Office the responsibility for broadcasting policy, it has struck me when visiting local radio stations—both independent and BBC stations—what a tremendous amount of enthusiasm there is by journalists and those working at those stations. My background is in the Press, and I have been struck by the fact that there is this degree of enthusiasm and that there is nothing of the slightly jaded atmosphere one is bound to admit one sometimes finds in newspaper offices. It is a testimony not only to the type of people who now work there, but also to the quality of the product which is produced in many local radio stations in this country.
Having said that by way of introduction, I certainly join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Willis for

1445
having tabled this Question today and given us the opportunity of rehearsing perhaps the debates which we shall have when the Government produce their White Paper on the Annan Report. I hope that that will be done in the early part of next year, but until then I am afraid that I am unable to deal with some of the detailed questions raised today.
I shall take just one example. The noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, asked a question about the possible expansion of the number of local radio stations. Obviously that is very much bound up in the whole question of what the Government's response should be to the report of the committee headed by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. That being so, clearly I am not in
a position to answer his question today. However, I certainly think that it was useful to have this opportunity to consider the undoubtedly invaluable role that is played in our society by the public broadcasting services of both radio and television.
In the debate which we had in this House in May on
the Annan Report we concentrated principally on the overall policy relating to broadcasting and its institutions. Today we have been invited by my noble
friend, and indeed by other noble Lords who have contributed in the debate, to focus our attention on the positive contribution which broadcasting can make. I am bound to say that I think broadcasting has come out of it pretty well. Indeed, I find it fairly remarkable that it has come out quite as well as it has. It was said by my noble friend Lord Willis that it was necessary to have this debate in
order to redress the balance. A number of other noble Lords said that on occasion all one heard were the "knockers". Sometimes I suppose that that may appear to be true. It is, I think, a risk that if anybody finds something disagreeable in our society he will find an opportunity to complain about the quality of radio or television broadcasting. Therefore, as a result of that, when we experience such disagreeable manifestations, it is possible that on some occasions, indeed on many occasions, television in particular is found to be a convenient scapegoat.
I must say, again as a former journalist, that I find it remarkable that in a debate lasting well over two hours there has been
1446
virtually no significant criticism made of broadcasting, be it of radio or television. I find it hard to believe that, if we had had a debate of two hours on the state of the British Press, there would have been quite such unrelieved praise being heaped upon the working journalists of this country. I say that in no sense of bitterness, as I hope the House would recognise. But I find it nevertheless interesting that this should be so, and that in fact although it was regarded as desirable to have a Royal Commission on the Press soon after the end of the last war, the situation at the moment is that no comparable organisation exists so far as television or radio are concerned in this country; although it is right to say that this particular issue was dealt with in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who recommended that some such arrangements should be made for both television and radio. That recommendation, with the others, is now being studied by the Government.
It is clear that television in particular is an especially powerful medium. No fewer than 96 per cent. of the population of this country have a television set in their homes. There are at the moment somewhere around 18,100,000 current licences for monochrome and colour reception in a population of somewhere around 54 million people. Given the power of television it is absolutely right, in my view—and I have said this on a number of previous occasions—that the Government should in no way become involved in the content of programmes or in the very difficult question of what constitutes good or bad taste. These are clearly matters for the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority, who have a clear statutory responsibility in this matter. I must say quite clearly to the House, and particularly to some of those who have raised questions of this character in the past, that it seems to me highly undesirable for Governments to become involved in day-to-day questions of this sort so far as broadcasting is concerned. It may sometimes appear to be tempting, but in my view it is very undesirable indeed.
The situation which I have described is of course the framework within which the broadcasters carry on their work. It is a framework that in my view affords ample opportunity to the programme makers to render a valuable service to the whole

1447
community. Certainly the Annan Committee made a judgment on the quality of that service, and I think that, by and large, the judgment was favourable. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred again to "knockers". On this occasion, it was apparently a group of "knockers" some of whom were on the Annan Committee. Although undoubtedly there were criticisms—and we can make our own decision as to whether we consider those particular criticisms to have been justified or not—by and large, the industry, both BBC and commercial, emerged from the inquiry with very considerable credit.
I suspect that having raised the debate, as he has done today, my noble friend hardly expects me to announce that the Government are going to announce a new inquiry into broadcasting—all the more so as on this particular occasion he has already decided on the conclusions of such an inquiry, and I think that the inquiry itself might perhaps be slightly superfluous. However, on an occasion like this, and following the speech which he made, I would certainly join with him in testifying to the beneficial effects of both radio and television.
In his speech in the Annan debate in May my noble friend Lord Willis said many complimentary things, as he did indeed today, about both. On that occasion he referred to some of the compliments which were being paid in the Annan Report itself. He referred to the importance of the BBC as a cultural organisation. Undoubtedly that is absolutely true. Certainly we all know of the valuable work which is done by broadcasting in keeping the public informed about current affairs; the useful role, as I have indicated, that local radio fulfils in binding together communities and promoting community spirit and, in summary, the good record of our broadcasting system as a whole which, as the Committee headed by Lord Annan said:
"… needs really no defence … and is the envy of others throughout the world".
In all these points my noble friend endorsed the views of the Annan Committee, and I am happy to join with him on that.
Of course there were aspects of the Annan Report where it was considered
1448
that some improvements might be made. In their responses to the invitation of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to comment on the report, the broadcasting organisations have indicated their willingness to consider the Committee's criticisms and their proposals. For example—and this has been touched on by a number of those who have spoken in the debate today—in the light of the two recent research reports, one by the Home Office and the other by Dr. Belson about the effects of screen and television violence, the BBC and the IBA are now reconsidering their programme arrangements and the codes of practice that apply to programmes in this particular category. Certainly we all look forward with interest to learning their conclusions in due course, as this is a subject that very many people now regard as being of fundamental importance to our society. It is not just a debate which is taking place in this country. As I know from the visit which I have just paid to the United States, where I had the opportunity of talking about this matter both to the FCC and to some of the programme makers, there is just as meaningful a debate taking place in the United States on this question of violence on television.
It is one of the paradoxes of broadcasting that although it is a large part of all our lives, no one really knows what its effects on us are; be they benign or malign. We just do not know for certain whether the simulation of violence on the screen leads, in the case of the susceptible viewer, and particularly some young people, to violent acts. This is a very difficult matter indeed on which to make judgments. But I consider—and I must make this absolutely clear in the light of some observations which have been made in this debate—that the onus is on the broadcasters. Until it can be established that programmes involving a high degree of violence do no harm, in my view they should err on the side of caution. I suspect that it would be the overwhelming view of most people, certainly outside the industry, and a great many inside it, that that should be so.
It also follows from what I have just said that the broadcasters should use all the available techniques that research offers to try to assess the effects of their own service. I should like to say just two things about that. First, I was very glad

1449
to learn of the progress that is being made by the BBC with discussions on some form of trust to initiate research. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and my noble friend Lord Aylestone both dealt with this particular question. I think it is the case that research into the effects of broadcasting is now being developed in many countries—here, the United States, and many other countries. It seems to me extremely sensible, that being so, that the broadcasters should pool their knowledge and their experience in this particular area.
Secondly—this point was touched on by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon—I hope the broadcasters in this country can get together to agree some common method of audience measurement. To discover what people are watching and listening to may seem a very simple matter but, as the noble Viscount rightly said, there have been substantial areas of disagreement over this. I think it is basic to wider and more fundamental research that we should get this right. As the noble Viscount pointed out, the Annan Committee drew attention to the desirability of the broadcasters themselves devising a single method rather than having two entirely separate exercises, one for the BBC and the other for ITV. This matter is now being discussed and we all hope for, and indeed I think we all have a right to expect, a successful outcome to those discussions.
A number of other questions have been raised and I come to a particular point raised by my noble friend Lady Phillips relating to advertisements which might appear during the course of an industrial dispute. I will gladly look into the point she raised because, as far as I am aware, it has not been raised with me before. I must tell her that one of the difficulties is that Schedule 2 to the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973 lays down the requirements on the Authority in these terms:
"No advertisement shall be permitted which is inserted by or on behalf of any body the objects whereof are wholly or mainly of a religious or political nature and no advertisement shall be permitted which is directed towards any religious or political end "—
and then come the words which are significant—
"or has any relation to any industrial dispute".
That is of course the language of the Act. The question my noble friend
1450
raised was what would be a reasonable interpretation of the Act. All I can say is that I will gladly go into that point to try to establish what the situation is on that matter.
My noble friend Lord Vaizey, in a typically boisterous and vigorous speech, raised a point of considerable importance, namely the hours of broadcasting. He asked why the hours of television should be limited in the way they are. The answer is that they are not, not as far as the Government are concerned. There is undoubtedly a power in this matter, and that is Section 21 of the 1973 Act from which I quoted. However, in 1972 the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications announced that he would no longer exercise those powers and, as a result of that—notwithstanding the fact that the language of the Act is one year later than that—no longer do the broadcasting authorities have to notify the Government of the precise times during the day when their services will be broadcast. I think the only time in recent years when this residual power was used was in 1974 during the economic crisis and industrial problems at the beginning of that year when we were in a three-day week situation, when our predecessors took the decision to limit television hours. Apart from that, there is no limitation so so far as the Government are concerned. I suspect that the principal reason for such limitation of hours as there is is the simple question of cost.
My noble friend Lord Willis asked an important question about the Government's position on the EEC licence fee. My noble friend will be aware that yesterday the BBC announced that they would like to have a substantial increase in the licence fee some time next year. The situation is that the BBC have not yet approached us about an increase in their fees—no doubt they will do so—and it is only right that I should add that I do not think it would have been at all reasonable for the BBC to have approached us, given the fact that there was an increase in the licence fee announced by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on 29th July of this year. He then made it absolutely clear that the increase which he was announcing on that occasion must last for at least one year. That remains the position of the Government, though of course if the BBC wish to

1451
approach us on this matter some time next year we shall be perfectly prepared to listen to what they have to say.
I will, after what has arguably already been an overlong speech, sum up. I would repeat that we are glad to have had this opportunity—I speak for myself and, I am sure, for all who have participated in the debate—to pay tribute to the valuable work which broadcasters undoubtedly play in our society. When I was recently in the United States I was struck by the very high esteem with which programmes from this country were regarded. These programmes, from both the BBC and Independent Television, are finding their way on to the networks and public broadcasting stations in the United States. Both the BBC and Independent Television have offices in the United States selling British programmes and in 1976 the total volume of overseas sales for the BBC and IBA was over £18 million, and despite the undoubted fact that a substantial amount of foreign material is shown on British television, we still have a quite significant surplus on our balance of payments as far as television is concerned, which is a quite remarkable tribute to both the BBC and Independent Television.
In the light of what my noble friend Lord Vaizey said, I shall avoid the temptation to say we have the best television in the world. My Swedish is extremely poor, my German is non-existent and I am a little rusty even in my Norwegian, so I would certainly not make that claim. Nevertheless, choosing rather more neutral language, I would say that our programmes stand comparison with those made anywhere else in the world. That is not to say that we should be pleased with everything that is produced. To be blunt, that would be an absurdly complacent view. Inevitably, there will be cases from time to time where it is believed that there have been lapses in taste and sometimes in sensitivity, but it is for the broadcasting authorities, not the Government, to deal with those. A few such alleged lapses have been mentioned this afternoon and we have had them more than touched on in the Press in recent months. Nevertheless, we recognise how essential is the function that the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority perform at relatively modest cost to the community.
1452
There are many general benefits available to all listeners and viewers, a point mentioned by many noble Lords in the debate. Apart from the dissemination of news and information, the encouragement of the arts and the promotion of education in all its forms, there are, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said, the special and particular benefits conferred on the aged, the infirm and the lonely, for whom life without the broadcasting services would indeed be a miserable existence. In the Government's view, no formal inquiry is needed to ensure that proper recognition is given to the valuable work done by our broadcasters. Nevertheless, this short debate has at least enabled some of the more positive achievements of the industry to secure wider recognition.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to point out that I was looking forward to hearing the Government's view on my point about the broadcasting of information about Parliament.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, despite what has been, as I have already indicated, an overlong speech, it has been impossible to deal with every point raised, but certainly what the noble Lord refers to is an important matter, and I will ensure that it is taken into account during our discussion of the Annan Report.

  CUSTOMS AND IMMIGRATION: HEATHROW AIRPORT
  CUSTOMS AND IMMIGRATION: HEATHROW AIRPORT
  UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
  UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
  ROAD SIGNS
  ROAD SIGNS