asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received any proposals from the Derbyshire Education Authority to close the primary schools in the villages of Dale Abbey and Stanton-by-Dale; whether his authorisation for such closures would be required; and what criteria are applied by him before reaching a decision.

Before these schools could be closed the authority would need to submit statutory proposals under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944, as amended. Such proposals have not yet been made. If they are, they will require the approval of my right hon. Friend, who will reach his decision with the best educational and other interests of the children in mind, and after taking account of any objections to the proposals submitted to him.

I welcome that answer. Will the hon. Lady give us an assurance that no more village primary schools will be closed simply on grounds of administrative convenience, bearing in mind their educational merit, the contribution they make to the life of the village and local community, and the parental opposition to many of the closures?

As I told the hon. Member, social and economic considerations are taken into account as well as educational considerations, but we cannot prejudge the decision of the authority, objections which might be received or consideration of these matters by my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if it is his policy to allow grammar streaming in comprehensive schools.

Subject to the articles of government, the internal organisation of any school is a matter for the professional judgment of the teachers in that school.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be a general welcome for that answer, as what matters is the welfare and progress of the children concerned? Will he assure the House that if a headmaster decides that there must be grammar streaming in a comprehensive school, no Ministry or committee interference with that decision will be allowed?

The Education Bill does not affect the internal organisation of schools. Personally, I regard experiments with mixed ability teaching as providing a great deal of evidence about future forms of organisation. There will be no attempt to impose any one form of internal organisations on any schools.

Does that reply mean that the Government have no view on banding, setting or streaming within comprehensive schools?

Banding is not a question of internal organisation; it is concerned with conditions of entry to a school. In regard to streaming and setting, the Government have no view as a Government.

Does my hon. Friend accept that although his answer relates to the existing situation, many people believe that grammar streams in comprehensive schools are anomalous? Is he aware that education thinking is moving steadily against streaming in comprehensive schools?

I happily accept what my hon. Friend says.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many parents are concerned about all-ability teaching in certain comprehensive schools, particularly in view of the statement made about falling standards, especially in mathematics, by the University Grants Committee last week?

I read with sorrow what the Committee felt bound to say about the teaching of mathematics. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we all hope that more children will keep on with mathematics to a higher level at school and that the average standard of mathematical ability of children leaving school will improve. However, that does not alter my view that experiments in mixed-ability teaching, such as that at Banbury, especially in the lower age range, have proved a success.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give an assurance that, in framing proposals for school transport, he will take account of the needs of parents whose children attend Christian and Jewish schools.

I would always have due regard to the needs of parents whose children attend denominational schools, but at present I am in no position to make further proposals for changing the existing system.

Has the Secretary of State had brought to his notice the widespread apprehension in the Epping Forest constituency and, I believe, in all constituencies since the publication of the consultative document? May we take his reply to mean that he will take sympathetically into consideration the special anxiety of parents living far from the nearest appropriate denominational school?

I have had a large number of such representations. There has been some misunderstanding. The charge, if it had been made, would have been the same whether the pupils travelled one and a half miles or 11½miles. It would have been a standard charge. The greater distance would not have made any difference, and arrangements would have been made for remission in cases of hardship. There is no unanimity in local authority circles and it is, therefore, unlikely that we can make much progress in this direction.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply, so far as it goes, will give great relief to many parents whose children attend denominational schools not within easy walking distance? Is he aware that following the publication of the consultative document there has been considerable apprehension that steps may be taken to impose additional penalties on parents which they may find it hard to afford?

Yes, I accept that, but when the consultative document went out I issued a Press statement making clear that there would be a uniform charge. One motivation in making the proposals for charging was the hardship suffered by parents of children in denominational and other schools who had to pay for journeys of, say, two and a quarter miles.

Bearing in mind that the Hodges Committee reported about five years ago, when does the Minister propose to take action to reform the present rules for school transport?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the time. It is about two and a half years since the Hodges Committee reported. Consultations have been going on. Because I believe in local democracy, I think that the local authorities, which have to run the scheme and contribute to its cost, should be consulted. I must take into account the fact that none of the local authorities wants to make a change.

Would it be a fair inference to draw from the lukewarm replies that the Secretary of State has given this afternoon that the Government, in effect, have abandoned their attempted to secure implementation of the recommendations in the Hodges Report?

It is not a question of the Government's seeking to secure implementation. Soon after I had the honour to be appointed Minister, I was pressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House to make proposals, as none had been put forward. That is exactly what I did. In response to the reactions which we have received, I find it difficult to see how we can go further, because the local authorities cannot agree on a common policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the total cost or saving to local authorities of abolishing the statutory walking distance for schoolchildren, and introducing a maximum fare of 7p per journey for all pupils.

If the hon. Member has in mind my revised proposals of last August, which included provision for remissions of charge in cases of financial hardship, these would at the then prevailing prices have maintained costs at broadly the existing level.

Surely, in spite of his Answer to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), the Secretary of State must accept ultimate responsibility for the absurdities and unfairnesses of the present statutory walking limits. Can the Secretary of State go on for ever hiding behind local authorities on this matter?

With great respect, it is not a question of hiding behind local authorities. It is only right, where the local authorities on the one hand have to administer and on the other to contribute to the cost of the scheme, that they should be fully consulted and have their views taken very seriously. That is why I do not think I am in a position at the moment to ask the House to change the law. The present position is that for distances beyond three miles and two miles there is free travel according to age. Local authorities already have absolute discretion to have subsidised or free travel for journeys less than these distances if they want to do so. Most of them do not want to do so. That is the problem.

Will my right hon. Friend give urgent consideration to framing new proposals for school transport, and make them equitable, so that in the case of families living just inside the limit the children do not have to walk a long way, or the parents to pay an enormous amount, whereas those living outside the limit pay nothing at all?

It was entirely to meet that point that I put forward the proposals, but all those who now have free travel do not want to pay. We have heard today from hon. Members opposite eloquent testimony to that effect. I have to take notice of the local authorities and the ratepayers concerned.

Is the Minister aware that bus fares are likely to go up yet again between now and the beginning of the next school year in September? Is the Minister saying that the disagreement between local education authorities is so serious that it is impossible to imagine changes in the school transport rules for the next two years?

I have been advised by the local education authority associations which have been consulted that they do not want a basic change in the existing arrangements.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, given the enormous increase in bus fares in recent years, there is now a charge on State education for many parents, and that there is a link between truancy and the cost of sending children to school? Could not the suggestion from the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) be looked at in that light? Will my right hon. Friend take early steps to enable working-class families in particular to get their children to school at reasonable cost?

I am aware of these problems. It was for that reason that we made proposals which, for the first time, provided for remission of charges in cases of financial hardship. As I have repeated, however, every local authority now has power, if it wishes, to provide free or subsidised transport for any of its pupils for any distance. The difficulty is not lack of power on the part of local authorities; it is lack of resources.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further allocation of money to the Derbyshire Education Committee to pay for the removal of all outside toilets, particularly from infant and junior schools.

My right hon. Friend does not allocate money to local education authorities for school building work, as such. Annual authorisations are made which represent ceiling figures for loan sanction and within these an authority is free to decide on the projects it wishes to start.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if the Government produce a White Paper which cuts back educational expenditure by?620 million by 1978–79, all education authorities will be affected by it, and that it is bound to affect the Derbyshire education authority's scheme of improvements to get outside toilets put inside, for infants who have to struggle across 100 yards of school yard in rain and snow? Will not my hon. Friend revise the policies and give Derbyshire education authority more money so that these improvements can be put into effect as speedily as possible?

I regret that it is not within my power to revise any White Paper. We are aware of the problems faced by the Derbyshire education authority and we know that it has made a decision to concentrate its money this year on the provision of basic needs and to confine improvements to minor works. I realise that the authority would like more money to deal with all the problems in the area, but unfortunately that is not possible at this time.

Is it not a terrible admission that schools such as this are still in existence in 1976? Does it not prove that the Government have their priorities all wrong, and that they should be attending to such schools instead of going ahead with their Bill to impose comprehensive education on local authorities?

By definition, the problems that exist in 1976 existed throughout the 1950s, and certainly from 1970 to 1974, when the Conservatives would have us believe that they were doing everything possible to make the country a much better place in which to live. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's comments.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what special provision he has made for the education of children who suffer from dyslexia.

Provision of education is primarily the responsibility of local education authorities, which will no doubt take account of the guidance offered by the Bullock Committee on the diagnosis and treatment of children with reading difficulties. While the provision of new facilities such as remedial centres or reading clinics will depend on the availability of resources, there has in recent years been a significant increase in the numbers of both, as well as of remedial teachers in ordinary schools.

Is my hon. Friend, who is a welcome addition to the Department, aware that many local authorities neglect their dyslexic children? Is the Department prepared to initiate a survey of the extent to which local authorities make provision for dyslexic children? Will my hon. Friend ascertain how soon assessments are made of dyslexic children, how much remedial treatment is given, and what special training is available for teachers?

These are all complex and difficult questions, largely because there is no agreement about precisely what is meant by the term "dyslexia". Many children who are now classified loosely as having dyslexia have a variety of different reading difficulties. No criteria have been found for identifying children with those special difficulties and for identifying special forms of treatment suitable for all of them which they, and only they, require. If I can give my hon. Friend a fuller answer to his question about the training of teachers, I shall write to him.

Given that the Government are cutting back generally on teacher recruitment, could not some of the money saved in that way be diverted to the training of specialist teachers for dyslexic and handicapped children in general?

We are doing what we can to provide special training for teachers needed in those areas, but constraints on expenditure apply in all areas and it is not always easy to say that money saved can be devoted to some other purpose. We also have to take account of the provision of staff in the colleges who are able to train a sufficient number of teachers.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although the state of backwardness in reading has come to be called dyslexia, and although there is great difference of opinion about it, many unemployed teachers could be used to make classes smaller and to give specialist teaching to children who have difficulty in reading?

That is an attractive proposition, but I am sure it will have expenditure implications. I shall consider what my hon. Friend suggests, but I can give no commitment on it.

In 1974 did not the Ombudsman criticise the lack of initiative in this area, and did not the then Under-Secretary of State, in February 1975, say that the Government were giving urgent consideration to the Bullock Report and regarded it as a call to action? When will the Government bring forward the Bullock Report for debate in the House?

The latter part of the supplementary question is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Lord President.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science in how many cases, during the last school year for which the figure is available, court proceedings were instituted under Section 40 of the Education Act 1944.

I understand from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that this information is not available.

In view of the truancy statistics, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that local education authorities are giving sufficient attention to the problem of truancy, including recourse to the courts where appropriate?

I understand that my hon. Friend is concerned to have any and every available statistic, but the assembly of statistics involves the use of central and local resources. All the criminal statistics for offences under the Education Acts are available, but not section by section. I do not think that local authorities are neglecting the question of court proceedings, where appropriate, but very often other methods are tried before the ultimate resort to court action against the parents.

In view of the futility of bringing prosecutions against parents, would it not be much more sensible to spend the money on assessing the reasons for the truancy?

I think that in a number of cases great efforts are made to deal with each problem as an individual problem. I do not think it is a question of counting up the money. The local education authorities who are responsible for these matters must be allowed to exercise their own judgment. It is not for me to tell them how to go about that problem.

Is the Secretary of State aware that I should be delighted to arrange for him to receive an invitation to come to Brighton to visit a number of schools which are facing serious truancy problems? Is he aware that one of the reasons for this problem is the operation of the existing law in relation to the school leaving age? Boys and girls are being forced to stay on at school, and it is really crazy that they should be doing so when over 16. When does the Minister hope to rectify this position?

I have said before and say again that one of the actions of the present Leader of the Opposition which had my full support was her raising of the school leaving age. We have tried to deal with the transitional problems at the end of the summer term by legislation that has just received the Royal Assent. I do not think the answer to this problem is to say that we shall go back on the decision taken by the Conservative Administration to raise the age to 16.

Is it not a fact, however, that truancy fears generally are grossly exaggerated in the popular Press?

I think that may well be the case, but they would not be exclusively the subject of exaggeration in the popular Press.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will report on the reasons for the projected closure this year of the International Institute for the Management of Technology, which was set up in 1972 under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The Institute was very slow in developing its programme and unsuccessful in attracting support for it from either industry or Governments. A full review in 1974 of its financial difficulties and possible role as a training organisation failed to produce proposals which all its sponsoring Governments could accept, and a decision was taken last year to close it at the end of its initial five-year trial period, unless a fresh basis for continuing was found.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he make available a paper setting out the cost incurred by Government for the scheme and explaining some of the advantages of the Institute and details of the work done by it?

I am not sure that a White Paper is appropriate, but if my hon. Friend would like some additional information I shall naturally supply it, if possible. The fact is that a number of Governments are not willing for the Institute to continue. It has not, unfortunately, been as successful as hoped when it was set up, despite the excellent premises provided by the Italians. It is disappointing, but I think we have no alternative but to accept the majority view that the Institute should close at the end of the year.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent changes he has made in his plans to extend educational facilities to children under the age of five years.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he intends to take to expand nursery education in view of the fact that some local education authorities are refusing to make use of their allocation for this purpose.

In spite of current economic difficulties and the need to give first priority for available resources in the schools to children of compulsory school age, nursery education is being provided for a growing proportion of under-fives.

Does the Minister accept that that gloss really cannot diminish the fact that capital expenditure on new nursery schools is scheduled to go down by four-fifths? Will he not re-examine the incredibly low priority given to what many of us believe is far and away the most important remaining educational reform to be carried out?

Despite the great difficulties, we shall attain 80 per cent. of the target set in rather more prosperous times, in 1972, when the then Government were frittering away the surplus built up by the Labour Government in the earlier years. My present concern about providing more capital allocations for nursery classes and schools is the enormous number of local authorities—a list has been published several times in Hansard—which are not taking up existing allocations. That is why there is no encouragement to give more.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great concern that such a large number of education authorities have refused to accept the allocation for which they first asked? Does he agree that the only way to see any progress made in nursery education—bearing in mind that there has been a welcome fall in the birth rate—would be to make nursery education, from the age of 4–5 years as a start, part of the State system, with both capital and current revenue allocated for the purpose?

I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says, but she must understand that my Government colleagues and I are not exactly looking around at the moment for new sources of expenditure.

Would not the?25 million that the Government have allotted for the compulsory comprehensivisation of schools be much better used in restoring the cuts that the Government have made in the nursery programme, which, by an odd coincidence, will amount to?25 million by 1978?

The hon. Gentleman is a very poor pupil. I have to explain the facts of life to him almost every time my Department is involved in Question Time.

First, a great number of authorities, including many Conservative authorities, are not taking the allocations for nursery classes for the current year, which expires in a few days. The allocations for the current year are grossly under-used. We have been told that many authorities do not want the allocations for next year.

Secondly, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has already conceded that the Education Bill will become law. At the moment there is no compulsory arrangement for comprehensive education. All the money that has been allocated to improve secondary schools will be used to provide laboratories and other facilities which the schools badly need. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has put on record that these improvements are being carried out against the wishes of the Conservative Party.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement in the light of the changed date for school leavers leaving school in the summer term; and what steps are being taken to extend the use of college of further education facilities during June, July and August.

The Department has today issued to local education authorities and schools a circular on school leaving dates. Copies have been placed in the Library. The circular explains the provisions of the new Act and offers guidance about school leaving dates arrangements generally in England and Wales. The use of college facilities is a matter for the local education authorities.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is he happy with the prospects this summer? Is he aware that a considerable number of further education colleges will be under-used, that a considerable number of school leavers will be unemployed, and that a large number of teachers will also be unemployed?

I am very unhappy about the present prospects for school leavers. I must be clear about that. I must reiterate that the provision of courses in further education colleges is a matter for local education authorities.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this Question raises the whole problem of the relationship between schools and colleges? Will he accept from me that there is now a great feeling in this area of education that it is time we had a date for compulsory day release? That would make a considerable contribution towards helping the 16–19 age group and some contribution to improving the industrial situation.

With respect, the Quesnot does not raise the broader issue of the relationship between schools and the further education sector. I accept my hon. Friend's intention in arguing that there should ultimately be compulsory day release. Clearly that is a prospect that we cannot contemplate in the immediate future, given our economic circumstances.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that having waited a year for the so-called initiative on behalf of the 16–19-year-olds, his Department has produced something extraordinarily feeble? Does he agree that it would have been much better to ensure that the final year at school was more work-related, and that 16-year-olds, instead of being imprisoned in classrooms, would have a chance to get out into work-related courses?

I have noted repeatedly over the past few months the hon. Gentleman's desire to get 15-year-olds and 16-year-olds into work, come Hell or high water. We do not share that view.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if the moneys received by students' unions are accountable to central Government.

My Department has no specific accounting responsibility, but union accounts are in general subject to independent audit.

Am I right in thinking that local authorities are obliged to pay whatever is asked by way of these fees and that the Government then pay 90 per cent. automatically in the case of mandatory grants? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities, the Government and the Public Accounts Committee have no control thereafter over the money? Is this satisfactory?

The hon. Gentleman is right in some of the points that he makes, and notably about mandatory awards. He is not correct when he implies, in the first part of his question, that student unions simply fix their subscriptions with no control by university authorities, college authorities or, in the case of the public sector, the LEA. It is true that we do not seek thereafter to exercise control over the way in which student unions spend their income. In my view it would be most improper were we to do so.

Will the hon. Gentleman say in what way student unions compare with trade unions, bearing in mind that students are not employees? Should students not be encouraged to think individually and not collectively?

I trust that the intention behind much of our education provision is to encourage all young people to think individually while being aware of their collective responsibilities, as members of our society. It does not seem that membership of student unions, bringing with it a great range of benefits, discourages individual thinking.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, when he next meets Mr. Charles Clarke, President of the NUS, he will make arrangements to meet representatives of students' unions that are not affiliated to the National Union of Students.

There is nothing to prevent any student or group of students making representations to me at any time.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a recent survey of student opinion clearly shows that 92 per cent. of the students interviewed felt that the present President of the National Union of Students and his Marxist leadership of that union do not represent the interests of the vast majority of students? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that all student opinion is heard by the Government?

If the survey be correct—and I am not aware of it—it indicates that there is a low level of voting activity among students. If that were not so the present President could not have been elected. Alas, I have no ministerial responsibility for the President of the National Union of Students.

Is this not a case in which, as in the past, the robust advice of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is to be preferred to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), when she urges all those of moderate view actively to take part in their trade unions, or in organisations which are not trade unions but are representative of groups? Is it not to be greatly desired that moderate students be encouraged to take part in the activities of the National Union of Students and not to chicken out of it?

I wish to encourage all students to take part in the activities of their unions. The degree of moderation of each of them may be a matter of judgment.

Is it not worth noting that the Tory Party is now giving encouragement to the break-up and fragmentation of the National Union of Students? It is the same party which complains about the multiplicity of trade unions in some of our industries. How does my hon. Friend reconcile the two points of view?

I can only say that I agree entirely with my moderate hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy with regard to compulsory membership of student unions.

In general, compulsory membership is prescribed in the statutes or articles regulating the conduct of the institution concerned. I support this, as otherwise it would be impossible to provide a wide range of social and recreational facilities.

The Minister's answer to the supplementary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) was thoroughly unsatisfactory. Is it not time the Minister discovered and then told the House the total cost of union dues, to the ratepayer and the taxpayer, bearing in mind that from one large local education authority the costis now about 250,000?

As I said in my answer, we regard it as essential that student unions should have compulsory membership where they so desire it and should be able to provide a wide range of social and recreational facilities, without which the whole quality of student life would be impoverished.

Does not the word "university" imply that such an institution is open for all expressions of view, however controversial, to be made within them? Is it not deplorable that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) cannot accept a long-standing invitation to Brunei University because of the activities of a minority of members of the student union there who have threatened to create chaos if he should go?

I deplore, as I have always deplored, any attempt by student unions or any other group to restrict freedom of speech in this country.

Will the Minister confirm that "university" takes its name simply from "universitas", which means the whole body of the colleges?

As a Latinist, I am glad to do so.

Will the Minister bear in mind that the vast majority of student unions in Scotland, compulsory or voluntary, believe that Scottish universities, with the rest of Scottish education, should be under the control of the Scottish Assembly?

I admire the hon. Lady's ingenuity.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department has made any estimates as to the cost of phasing out parental contributions to the student grant, in conjunction with the abolition of the parental tax allowance on students in full-time higher education.

The estimated cost for 1974–75 was about?27 million. It would be more now.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that because of inflation about one-third of all parents are unable or unwilling to make up their contribution to the level of the student grant? As the age of majority is now 18, does the hon. Gentleman not consider it reasonable that all students should receive at least the basic grant?

I must make it clear that I can see no early prospect of abolishing parental contributions. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I note that Opposition Members call for a general reduction in public expenditure but constantly make specific proposals for increasing it.

I hope that my hon. Friend will not put all his hon. Friends in that category. Many serious anomalies still arise from parental contributions. A great deal of hardship is suffered by students whose parents are not prepared to meet their full obligations. Hardship is also suffered by parents who have to pay full fees on taxed income.

On more than one occasion, under both this Administration and the previous one—when I believe the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State for Education and Science—my Department asked local authorities to emphasise to parents the importance of paying their contribution in full.

Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter sympathetically? The criteria upon which it was based have now changed, owing to taxation as well as inflation. Will the hon. Gentleman at least base the parental scale on net income instead of gross income?

No, that would be extremely difficult to do. Taxation matters are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Otherwise, we try to take these matter into account in the annual review of students grants. It is now an annual review, instead of being triennial. That is a great improvement. We try to take into account changes in the relative income of parents as well as general inflation.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the Schools Council.

I spent most of last Wednesday 24th March with him, and have no immediate plans for a further meeting at present.

Will the Secretary of State keep in mind that although changes in the present examination arrangements may be desirable, the proposals by the Schools Council have run into very serious criticism from a large body of informed educational opinion throughout the country?

I read about these matters from time to time in the education Press, but no such proposals have reached me and it would be injudicious, to say the least, to comment on proposals before they are submitted.

In view of the widespread concern and the possible harmful effects of a single examination on standards in school and in higher education, will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will take no final decision on any proposals until he has had further and widespread discussion with industry, the professions and the universities about the desirability of this examination?

I certainly give the hon. Member the assurance that I shall take no decision before I have studied the proposals. I have no reason to suppose that the proposals will come to me in the same form as they were sent out for consultation. I shall want to consider them carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with the ILEA about the implementation of the provisions of the Education Bill.

My officials and I have been in touch with the ILEA several times in the past few weeks about the effect of the Education Bill.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Minister of State has given way to the demands by the ILEA on banding? Are his views similar to those of his hon. Friend?

I am not exactly sure what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say. As I understand it, a group of amendments was moved during Committee stage and defeated. So far as I know no changes have been made to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister of State stated very clearly the Government's position about banding.

Has the right hon. Gentleman had any representations from the heads of London secondary schools in favour of the banding arrangements proposed in the Education Bill?

There is a later question on the Order Paper on this subject. We have had deputations from head teachers. I accept that the banding problem in the ILEA is very difficult. I would hope that the best way to resolve it would be a quick conclusion to the Committee stage of the Bill, so that we can resume the argument on the Floor of the House.

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) on 23rd March, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituency has the greatest concentration of paper mills in the country and that local trade unionists and management are extremely concerned about the present state of the industry? In particular, does he realise that they fear that the import and dumping of paper from Scandinavian countries above the agreed quotas and from non-traditional suppliers such as Brazil can lead to an industrial collapse similar to that of the textile industry? Is my right hon. Friend aware——

Order. That is enough to go on with.

My hon. Friend may be aware that representatives of the paper industry and the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades, under the chairmanship of the NEDO, discussed yesterday the whole question of dumping with representatives of the Departments of Industry and Trade. They were assured that the Government were anxious to have any evidence about dumping and would follow up any worthwhile information. If my hon. Friend has any further information, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade will be only too pleased to examine it.

Since I understand that the Prime Minister may now be resigning before the Budget, will he explain to both the TUC and the House why his Government, more than any other Government in history, have increased the burden of taxation on the average working man's wage packet?

I have dealt with all these matters in my discussions with the TUC. They have been the subject of continuing discussion—because we have had discussion rather than the confrontation which the right hon. Lady's Government had. But the one thing on which the right hon. Lady, with her total lack of gumption in all political matters, has exceeded even herself is in her attempt to interfere with union elections—a move that can only be counter-productive.

Will my right hon. Friend consult the TUC about the involvement of political parties in trade union elections? Does he agree that it is thoroughly undesirable that the Communist Party, the Conservative Party, or any other party should be directly involved in the internal affairs of trade unions? Is it not a typical example of the cack-handed way in which the Tory Party treats the trade unions for it to be involved in this way?

I do not associate myself with every adjective in my hon. Friend's question. My discussions with the TUC have been useful, productive, and always on serious matters, not on the frivolities of Her Majesty's Opposition.

Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to advise his successor about the need for continual contact with this important element in our society—the TUC—and whether he will also take note of some of the representations that it has been making in the Press about the need for the TUC to keep in closer contact with Parliament? Is there not a case for some reform of the structure of this House and the other place, to allow for such consultation?

Yes, Sir. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that I have always taken with great seriousness any representations from him, whether made in the House or outside it. I am sure that the TUC recognises, as he recognises, the great importance of the relationship that has been established between the Government and the trade union leadership. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is very important that none of the trade union leaders ever loses sight of the responsibilities of this House.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Switzerland.

I have no plans to do so, Sir.

Will the Prime Minister seek an early opportunity to go to Switzerland and there discuss with Mr. Alexander Solzhenitsyn his views on the state of Britain in 1976? In the meantime, will he comment on Mr. Solzenitsyn's view that during the period when he has been Prime Minister the standing of this country has descended to that of Romania, or even Uganda?

As one who, with certain other Members of this House and other people, played a big part in trying to aid the release of Mr. Solzhenitsyn, I respect his right to say whatever he pleases. That is a right that he enjoys now but that he did not enjoy previously. I respect his right to say whatever he wishes, but I do not agree with it.

It is based on experience.

It is based on experience in the Soviet Union. He has no experience of this country. He is entitled to say it, but I totally reject what he says about this country, and so, I think, do the vast majority of our fellow citizens. If Conservative Members think they have any gain to secure out of following what he says and exploiting it, they will be proved very badly wrong.

As the Prime Minister will be spending a great deal more time in the House, and as I have always been 150 per cent. a Harold man, will he, instead of retreating to the traditional position below the Gangway, come and join us up here on the Back Benches, where we have a wee place for him and where, although the view may be deplorable, the company is very congenial?

The company is certain congenial, and I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. If he has always been a 150 per cent. Harold Wilson man, for the first time I am beginning to understand what inflation means. As one who has tried to help my hon. Friend in various capacities, I hope to be able to continue to do so wherever I am sitting.

If the Prime Minister will return to Switzerland for a moment, will he say where, in the Western world, there is a better managed economy than the Swiss economy, and whether he believes that this has any connection with two vital ingredients of the Swiss system of government, namely, a greater degree of decentralisation to the regions than any other country in Europe and, secondly, a greater degree of power sharing by all parties in government?

I am not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman would support all that they have done in the past about the equal rights of women, but I note what he says. Also, of course, the Swiss do not carry any of the burden, that we have cheerfully shouldered, of the North Atlantic Alliance and NATO. That is one thing. Switzerland, of course, is a powerful financial centre, as we all recognise—a haven for many things. However, I am so friendly to the Swiss at this and all other times that I shall refrain from quoting, as the hon. Gentleman did not do so, the immortal words of Harry Lime, in "Third Man", about their principal contribution to history.

Why bother to go abroad? Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he were to pay an unofficial visit to Wales, after his redeployment, he would receive a very warm welcome?

Order. The Prime Minister may well have a welcome there, but Switzerland and Wales are not connected.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Prime Minister of France.

I have had no recent meeting with the Prime Minister of France, Sir. I did, however, meet the French Foreign Minister on 18th March, when we discussed one or two of the matters likely to arise at the forthcoming meeting of the European Council in Luxembourg. M. Sauvagnargues also had talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the French Prime Minister, will he press upon him the urgent necessity completely to change the Common Market's common agricultural policy before it degenerates into a further mess and sweeps away the Market with it?

This matter was fully discussed in the recent meeting of the Council of Agricultural Ministers. The House will be aware of the line taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There is great concern not only on the part of the British Government but on the part of the German Federal Chancellor and others about the extent to which this is now developing. There have already been preliminary discussions—which I hope will be followed up in the European Assembly—about the long-overdue reforms and long-overdue economies and what I also hope will be the long-overdue rejection of this system of total standardisation of everything we eat, drink, consume, buy and sell, because I believe that the strength of the European Community and of Europe should be in the diversity of our cultures and what we all have to contribute, and not a standardised uniformity.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the remarkable achievement to which he has contributed so much, in getting a working agreement with the trade unions of this country in combating inflation——

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is on the wrong Question. This Question relates to the Prime Minister of France.

What I was about to ask my right hon. Friend was, in view of what I said recently, Mr. Speaker, whether he thinks it is important that we maintain this first-class co-operation, with the TUC, and that we should see to it that it is not endangered by any CAP action which increases food prices.

I find it difficult to single out a relationship to the Question, Mr. Speaker, as you do—though you are usually more subtle than I am in these matters. I do not think that the matter arises from this Question. If my hon. Friend is suggesting that I give any advice to the French Prime Minister on this question, I must tell him that I have already said that I shall not give any gratuitous advice to my successor, whoever he may be. Still less would I ever give any to the French Prime Minister.

Before relinquishing his office, will the right hon. Gentleman reaffirm his Government's commitment to ensuring the success of the Anglo-French Concorde project, and will he consider inviting his successor, whoever he may be, to take an early flight in the aircraft?

The answer to first part of that supplementary question is "Yes", and the answer to the second part, as I have recently had such an invitation, is also "Yes".

Do the Government maintain their opposition to the dangerous proposal for a joint Anglo-French nuclear force, which would ultimately mean a German finger on the nuclear trigger? Will the Government maintain that opposition, even if France should rejoin NATO?

At no time as Prime Minister have I heard any suggestions of an Anglo-French joint nuclear capability. I do not believe that it has ever been put forward during the period of a Conservative Government, either. If it had been put forward during my premiership I would have totally rejected it, and I cannot think that President Giscard would have considered it, either. It is not a runner. I cannot imagine any Prime Minister or Government of this country accepting it, quite apart from the warnings which my hon. Friend gave, and which I gave many years ago, about the danger of anything that might look like a German finger on the trigger.

If the Prime Minister sees the Prime Minister of France, will he reflect that the views of the British people are very much in line with those of the Gaullist Party, that if the Common Market continues to develop it should develop on the lines of Europe des patries?

As it is now 3.30 p.m., may I congratulate the Prime Minister on the dexterity with which he has tried to answer, not always successfully, some of the Questions put in this House?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concluding remarks. He has always been most courteous. Though, Mr. Speaker, you are in fact the custodian of the stop watch of this House, nevertheless, I thank the hon. Gentleman.

I have nothing in common, nor, in my estimation, have Her Majesty's Government, either now or at any future time, with Gaullist doctrines on these matters—nor, I thought, had the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). Where the hon. Gentleman has expressed his doubts about the Common Market and where we have sought to reform it from within, it has been from a different stimulus than the negative position taken for a long time by President de Gaulle.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I propose to you that candles be now brought?

I suggest that hon. Members at the back of the Chamber move down lower. I am sure that efforts will be made to restore the lighting.

Before I call the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir P. Kirk) I want the House to know that I have an exceptionally long list of hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate today. Hon. Members can help each other. That is the only comment I pass on the matter.

There can be little doubt of the importance of the proposal that we debated yesterday and are debating today. Whether hon. Members are in favour of or against our membership of the European Economic Community, the proposal before us, arising from Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome, has far-reaching connotations which go beyond the Treaty itself. For many years people who might loosely be called idealists have believed that some kind of international forum to deal with the problems that arise between nation States is of great importance. It is over 100 years, for example, since Tennyson in his poem "Locksley Hall" called for

"In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world."

What he envisaged was different from anything that we have now.

Since then the world has made considerable strides in international organisations. We had the League of Nations, which failed, the United Nations, which has been a moderate success, and such bodies as the Council of Europe and NATO which, in their way, have contributed greatly to the relations of member States with each other and with other States in the world.

All those organisations lacked one thing a basis in the suffrage for the people whom they claimed to represent. They represented Governments, yes. They had consultative parliamentary Assemblies, yes. Many hon. Members have, as I have, served with great interest in organisations such as the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Western European Union or the North Atlantic Assembly and many hon. Members have been delegates to the United Nations.

But never before has there been a proposal for elections to an international Assembly or Parliament with power to act in certain cases, however limited that power may be, and I accept the Foreign Secretary's analysis yesterday. We are discussing a new departure and it is right that the House should give time to it and consider the implications that flow from it, whether we are in favour or against it. It is a radical departure from anything that we have known and it must be considered seriously, as it was yester day and as I am sure it will be today. That is true even with the limited powers that the European Parliament or the European Assembly—and I am not wedded to either term—possesses at the moment.

I have frequently said that the European Parliament, as it is at present, does not use to the full the powers that it possesses. It is capable of developing more in the way of control over the Executive, by putting forward the views of constituents and Members in the nine member States. If it did so it might gain a greater echo in the media and the public opinion of the nine member countries. For example, Mr. Tindemans, in his recent Report, proposed that the European Parliament should be given power of initiative. There is no need for that because it possesses that power already. It can put forward Reports on its own initiative and stimulate the Commission into action, and it frequently does that. Mr. Tindemans proposed a formalisation of what already exists, if the Members of the Parliament were prepared to grasp it.

Yesterday we discussed accountability on budgetary matters. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) regretted that the proposal for a Public Accounts Committee on Westminster lines had not made greater progress. I have a particular interest because that proposal was first made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) when he was still Prime Minister, and when I first went to Strasbourg in January 1973 he recommended that I should put it forward in my first speech.

We have reached the stage where a sub-committee of the Budgetary Committee of the European Parliament is being set up to deal with public accountability. The draft which was laid before the House last year and which I think has been ratified under the Ponsonby Rules—or will be soon—accepts that the new Court of Audit will have to act in conjunction with the European Parliament. It is no great tragedy that this is merely a sub-committee of the Budgetary Committee or that it does not possess the powers to send for persons and papers which the Committee of this House has. For heaven's sake, it has made a start and it is the first step that counts.

I am glad that two Members of the House are leading Vice-Chairmen of that Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Shaw) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). We shall therefore be able to bring to the European Parliament a valuable element of Westminster experience. It is all part of the process of cross-fertilisation. From the one part of the Budgetary Treaty which was accepted by Governments last year and which it is hoped will be ratified this year we can build a system of public accountability which can, in the long run—or perhaps even in the short run—be as effective as anything we have in this country. It depends upon the will, upon the need to do it and upon the differences in nine different parliamentary traditions and approaches to the questions of public accountability and budgetary matters. That it can be done I am sure. That it will be done I am confident.

Nobody who has served in the European Parliament could not but wish to see its powers extended. I would like to see strengthened the power of co-determination or the right of Parliament to legislate alongside the Council of Ministers. The European Conservative Group has frequently put forward such proposals. If that is impossible, I should like to see at least the process of consultation or conciliation between the Parliament and the Council of Ministers, which at present prevails in budgetary matters and which is successful, extended to deal with general matters. The powers are there. It is the one international parliamentary body that possesses this modest element of power and therefore it must have responsibility. That responsibility can be given to it only by a directly elected Parliament.

In his almost clinical analysis of the European Parliament yesterday, the Foreign Secretary described the powers which the European Parliament possesses, and I cannot disagree with a word he said. I have to admit that, compared with the powers of this House, the powers of the European Parliament are minimal. But it has been going for only 25 years. If we accept the Prime Minister's assertion that this Parliament began in 1265, I do not imagine that the Parliament of 1290 showed an immense leap forward in that time.

In a recent discussion I had about the regional fund, the then Chairman of the Council of Ministers, Dr. Fitzgerald, asked me how far I thought we had progressed in developing parliamentary powers. He said, "Do you think we have reached the Reformation?" I replied that I thought we were getting into the 17th century and he said that we would soon have to decide whose head we should cut off. Whatever the Foreign Secretary's future is, he may like to ponder whether he wishes to expose himself in this way.

Seriously, the progress which has been made, although undoubtedly frustrating to those of us who are there, and although minimal in terms of Parliaments such as ours, which have been in existence for 700 years or more, has been considerable and should not be under-estimated.

It is in the light of those achievements over the past quarter of a century, since the first Assembly was set up under the Coal and Steel Treaty, that we must examine the proposal being made today. For the only justification for direct elections is that there is something there which it is worth the time and effort of Members to attend and to discuss, something which will develop further along the lines that we have in mind.

It is essential that in the first instance we get the decision right. I shall not argue today for this or that method of electing Members. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Government have been very wise in their decision to set up a Select Committee. They have been equally wise to exclude the question of principle from it, because that means that with luck we shall have a fairly quick answer from the Select Committee——

And the answer that the hon. Gentleman wants.

I did not propose the setting up of the Select Committee, so I have no ultimate result in mind. It was the Government's decision.

I hope that the short delay which will result from the Select Committee's deliberations will be made up for by its proposals being acceptable over a much wider area than would have been the case if the proposals had merely been those of the Government. That is a matter to be considered in a question of this importance.

The Select Committee will not discuss principle, but I hope that it will discuss virtually everything else, not only those matters in Part III of the Green Paper,

"Matters for decision by the British Parliament",

but also those in Part II,

"Matters for Community decision".

If the right hon. Gentleman is correct in his forecast that a final decision can be expected at the European Council Meeting in July, he will be able to go to that meeting—if he goes, and in whatever capacity—armed with the results of the Select Committee's deliberations and, I hope, supported by a debate and vote in this House.

Therefore, although we have discussed these matters at considerable length, it is right that we should once again look at the most important matters to be decided by the Select Committee. I deal first with the date. Considerable doubt has been cast on the possibility of our having direct elections in the spring of 1978. Obviously, there will be considerable difficulties in reaching such a date, and the complications are growing. Nevertheless, I believe that, as the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said on a previous occasion, if the will is there, it can be done, and if the will can be manifested by the Select Committee, it is possible to do it.

But we should not be unaware of the history behind the date. The idea is getting around that 1978 is in a curious way a date put forward by fanatical Members of the European Parliament, only too anxious to see themselves directly elected and thus vested in some kind of cloak of legality. I should like to remind the House of what happened.

Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome provided for the Assembly to make representations to the Council of Ministers. It first did that as long ago as 1960 in a Report put forward by the distinguished Belgian Socialist Senator, Professor Dehousse. That Report was not adopted by the Council of Ministers and no further progress was made. Towards the end of 1974 it occurred to some of us in the European Parliament that it might be a good idea if we revived the proposals for direct elections, and Dr. Schelto Patijn of the Netherlands, another distinguished Socialist, was nominated Rapporteur to draw up the Draft Convention, which he did.

However, before that Convention had been drawn up and discussed in the Political Committee of the European Parliament, the Heads of Government, meeting in Paris in December 1974, laid down the spring of 1978 as the date on which they wanted to see direct elections. It was not our date. It was the date of the Council of Ministers and the Heads of Government. We had much more modestly put forward 1980 as a possible date and had to amend the Draft Convention accordingly, because we could hardly seem less enthusiastic than the Council of Ministers. Whether or not we prove to be right is another matter, but it was at the bidding of the Council of Ministers—admittedly with the British and Danish Governments reserving their position—that the date was brought forward.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said yesterday that he regarded this as one example of the danger of laying down timetables. I agree with him to a certain extent, because there is a good chance that this timetable, like so many others under the Treaty of Rome or outside it, will not be met. But it may also be said that if one does not lay down timetables, nothing ever happens. At least with a timetable people wake up to the idea that they had better do something. Even if they will not meet the date the get some action going. It was right that a date was laid down by the Heads of Government. If they do not meet it, the responsibility will rest upon them, not upon us. We have discharged our duties as laid down under the Treaty. It is now for the European Council and the Council of Ministers to make their recommendations to Member Governments, and it will then be up to member Governments and Parliaments to act.

The second matter which the Select Committee may wish to consider, although it is not strictly necessary in connection with direct elections, is the question of the place where the European Parliament should meet. I have never concealed my view that the present situation of the European Parliament is a nonsense and should be cleared up as soon as possible. Unfortunately, it is not a matter that rests in our hands. Although the European Parliament retains control over the administrative budget of the Community, it does so subject to two qualifications, one concerning salaries and the other concerning the vote of any funds in connection with the selection of a site for the Parliament. Therefore, even if we put forward proposals, it is impossible for us to put them into effect, although many Members of the Parliament have had enough of the present situation and wish that we could meet in Brussels from now on. If we voted funds towards doing that the European Court would almost certainly hold us to be ultra vires.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), who was good enough to tell me that he could not be here at this stage of the debate, I am sure was trying to be helpful yesterday when he suggested that no decisions should be taken on elections until the site of the Parliament had been decided. I prefer to put the matter the other way round and say that no decisions will be taken about the site until the decisions on the elections have been taken. It would be helpful if the Select Committee could put forward ideas, as the Committee in another place has done in a document which the other place debated yesterday.

Although the site is a matter of considerable importance to the proper running of any future European Parliament, as it is to the running of the present Parliament, it cannot be regarded as a sine qua non. We can continue to go on with the present travelling circus, though we would all much rather not. I think that I speak for every Member of the European Parliament in saying that we would all much rather move to Brussels as soon as possible. But I imagine that those who are directly elected—and it will be a matter for someone other than this House to decide who they are—will be able to put up with it for a short time yet.

The third major question that the Select committee should consider is that of numbers—the total number of seats to begin with and the division between the various member States. Here again, it is worth looking into the history.

The original proposal put forward by the Committee of the European Parliament was for a Parliament much larger than the one now proposed, a Parliament of about 550 members. It was felt that a Parliament of that size would be much better able to overcome the various difficulties that arose partly from the sovereignty of small nations, partly from the difficulties of regions within large nations and so on. We in the Conservative Party at that time believed that that was too large, for one overriding reason—that while a Parliament of 550 or so might be manageable if it were to remain a Parliament of 550, it was unlikely to be manageable in the event of other countries joining the European Economic Community. The more that came in, the larger this body would become and the more unwieldy it would be. We have 635 Members of this House and I believe that that is far too many. This is purely a personal view. Provided that I am not one of those who goes out, I am prepared to support that view even more strongly.

I think that the optimum figure at this moment, when we are faced with the possibility of another four countries joining within the next ten years, is somewhere between 300 and 400. The figure that the European Parliament finally settled for, of 350-odd, was a compromise between the various figures put forward. I think it was a compromise on the wrong basis. The mistake which they made was to put forward a formula which assisted the smaller countries very much at the expense of the big ones. Accepting that one cannot reduce the representation of Luxembourg below the six that they have at present, it seems to me that until we reach absolute proportionality as we go up the scale, no country should have more than its present entitlement in the indirectly elected Parliament of 198. This was the basis of the proposal put forward by Lord Reay which was not successful. However, we in the Conservative Party in the European Parliament believed and still believe that it offers much greater flexibility and a much fairer division among the various countries.

If the hon. Gentleman wants the European Parliament to have powers which it does not yet have, how can he say that if that Parliament had those powers, and it felt so disposed, it could not reduce the number of Members which Luxembourg has?

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that it is easy to add but it is awfully difficult to subtract. We find this in connection with this House. It would be extremely difficult to reduce the number of Members of this House. I happen to believe, as an English Member, that the Scots and Welsh are grossly over-represented whereas, as a purely dispassionate outsider, I believe that Ulster is under-represented. We may probably have to increase the representation for Ulster but let the right hon. Member try to reduce the numbers for Scotland and Wales and see where it gets him. I doubt if he would get out of this Chamber alive if he tried that. The answer is that what we are now contemplating is a figure which will be an irreducible minimum for the future. In that case, we should start small. We can build up but I very much doubt whether it will be possible to reduce.

One other point which the Select Committee will undoubtedly have to consider, when considering Part II of the Green Paper, is the question of the dual mandate. We had a lot of discussion of this in the course of yesterday's debate. As one of the original Members of the European Parliament, I might perhaps be allowed to express my view. The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans), who is not able to be here today—I quite understand the reason why—said yesterday that he did not find the dual mandate particularly burdensome.

It is very much easier now that hon. Gentlemen opposite have joined us than it was before they had. Then there were pairing difficulties and we frequently found ourselves occupying the benches at Heathrow Airport in the early hours of the morning on our way back to Strasbourg after coming here to vote. But equally there is no prospect whatsoever of the work of the European Parliament diminishing. On the contrary, it is likely to increase. Therefore, the dual mandate difficulty which obliges hon. Members to spend two and three days a week on average outside this country cannot be tolerated as a compulsory matter for ever.

I stress the words "as a compulsory matter". I would not stop it compulsorily. Nor, like the Danes, would I make it compulsory for everyone. There would be difficulties for electoral law if it were said that only Members of this House could be elected to the European Parliament. Every time there was a General Election and someone lost his seat, presumably we should have to have a by-election for the European Parliament as well, and that would create considerable difficulties. I think there is a case for saying that anyone is welcome to try but I would not like to try myself. Nobody should be compelled to carry out the two.

The hon. Member for Newton also said that possibly the European Parliament spent a lot of its time discussing matters such as the harmonisation of jams, jellies, marmalade and chestnut purée, which we and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) spent a lot of time last week immersed in—[Laughter.] We get up to all sorts of things over there. Then there is the favourite example cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, that of the harmonisation of mayonnaise. I listened suitably chastened to what my hon. Friend said, then Mr. Speaker called the Orders of the Day and the Rating (Caravan Sites) Bill came before the House, and I wondered whether we were wasting our time as much as hon. Members suggest.

We are dealing with matters of importance to our constituents even though it is jam, jelly, marmalade and chestnut purée. I happen to have one of the largest jam factories in the country in my constituency. In spite of what hon. Gentlemen opposite may feel about it, it is a matter which concerns me and my constituents and one ought to spend a bit of time discussing it. It is quite wrong for hon. Members to pour scorn on these small matters when we in this House discuss something which does not concern 90 per cent. of Members.

There is a dual role to be pursued by Members in this House and in the European Parliament, and it is a dual role which will become more difficult if they have to have the dual mandate as well. It has been suggested that there should be some link between the Members of the European Parliament and this House. This is more a matter for this House to arrange than for the Community to arrange. I doubt whether it is possible to arrange something on a Community-wide basis, whether or not one goes for my favourite scheme of making all Members of the European Parliament honorary bishops so that they can become temporary members of the House of Lords. A slightly more practical scheme is that Members directly elected should be entitled to use all the facilities of this House, except actually entering the Chamber while the House is sitting and taking part in the debates. These are matters which the Select Committee should look at. They are matters of considerable importance.

The second group of matters which the Select Committee will have to look at are matters which affect this country alone. These are matters which I am sure the Home Secretary will have a lot to say about, such as the delineation of constituencies, the type of electoral system we should pursue for the first election and, if the Foreign Secretary's pessimism is right, also matters concerning the franchise and so on. These matters were fully discussed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) yesterday and there is no need for me to go into them in any great detail.

There are one or two points on which I hope the Home Secretary will comment, such as the franchise. It seems a major problem to decide whether all Community citizens will be entitled to vote where they happen to live. This would presumably mean that citizens of France, Germany or Italy who have residential qualifications in this country would be entitled to be included on the electoral roll of this country for the purposes of European elections. If we did not do that, we should be faced with a considerable anomaly in as much as we shall be alone among the countries in the Community in allowing the citizens of one other member country—the Republic of Ireland—to vote for European elections and for domestic elections, while refusing it to all the others. This is the sort of anomalous situation to which the Select Committee can bend its mind and on which I would like the views of the Home Secretary. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is an anomaly already."] It may be an anomaly already, but it will be an even greater anomaly if it is carried on to the European register. I recognise the difficulty that, if it is not done, a new register will have to be compiled, which in itself will create considerable complications.

Will the hon. Gentleman remember that the nationality test for British domestic electoral purposes is not citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies but British subject status, and that if that were to apply in the other countries of the Community, no less than a quarter of the world's population would be entitled to vote somewhere in the European Community—including the entire population of India, Bangladesh, Canada, Australia and so on? So there would certainly be some anomalies we should have to get rid of.

My imagination is not quite as fertile as that of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I cannot see the entire population of the Indian subcontinent moving en masse to France to vote in European elections. That seems an improbable scenario. In any case, I am certain that the immigration laws of the Republic of France would prevent it.

There is a minor point, which may be a particular hobby horse of mine, that we might in these European elections get rid of the gross discrimination against clergymen of the Church of England—the only people apart from Peers, lunatics and bankrupts who are not allowed to stand for membership of the United Kingdom Parliament—and allow them to stand as well for the European Parliament.

And Church of Scotland clergymen.

Yes, Church of Scotland clergymen as well.

The question of finance worried a number of hon. Members yesterday—not only paying for elections but financing political parties. On this matter, we are in two minds on this side of the House. We do not like the idea of State subvention, but it seems unlikely that we shall get candidates who can afford to stand unless there is some element of State subvention which, for the first election, would have to be based on the votes gained in the previous national election. I see no other way to do it. I do not know whether it is too late to refer this matter to the Houghton Committee, but if it is, I hope that the Select Committee will have a quick look at it.

These are details, and I come back to where I started—what we are aiming, with this proposal, to do. We are doing it, perhaps, for practical reasons in that the present dual mandate system is not likely to survive much longer without undue strain on Members and that therefore some better system must be found and this is the only one available. We are doing it also for the slightly more theoretical and indeed basic reason that the Community possesses powers, as we know, over the lives of our citizens and that therefore our citizens should be represented directly at the centre of those powers as well as indirectly through the membership of this House.

That has been proved more than anything else by such matters as the question of skimmed milk, which was raised yesterday by the hon. Member for New-ham, South (Mr. Spearing), on which it turns out that there is no parliamentary power to prevent Directives of that kind. It cannot be done here and it certainly cannot be done in the European Parliament. That of course would require amendment of powers. That is something which will not come immediately and which will certainly not come at all without a directly elected European Parliament.

As I have said, I have never disguised my view that it is essential for the Community and the peoples of the Community that there should be a greater element of parliamentary power within the Community. I said that in my first speech in Strasbourg in January 1973 and I have continued to say it ever since. I have said it when I was here, too—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Not lately."] I was a Defence Minister during the last Conservative Government and it was rather difficult to get into these matters. But if the hon. Gentleman will look up my speeches before 1957 as a Back Bencher on this subject he will discover that I said it then, and I have not changed my view during that period.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury yesterday advanced the view that there was no point in doing this because the Community was on the verge of breaking up anyway. There was an element of wishful thinking in his thesis. I remember the same remarks being made in 1965, when General de Gaulle brought the whole Community to a grinding halt by refusing to let his representatives attend any of its committees or any meetings of the Council, until the Community found a way around his objection to majority voting in the Council of Ministers. The Community found it and the Community survived. It will survive the grave crisis that it is going through now, as are all individual member countries, arising from the monetary and general economic situation within the Community.

But then, my hon. Friend would ask, "What do you want to do it for? Assuming that the Community survives, this must be a step towards federalism." The hon. Member for Newham, South was kind enough last night to describe me as "an out-and-out federalist", making it sound a little like an obscene disease. But it is a title in which I should be prepared to glory. I am, and I have never disguised the fact, but, equally, I hope that I am a realist. I know, as does any other hon. Member who shares my views, that this will not come overnight and may not come in my lifetime or that of my children.

I will work towards a federal solution for Europe, yes, but Europe will get its own solution in its own time in its own way, as it has always done. The remarkable thing about the Community which comes through again and again if one studies its 15-year history is that it is a natural growth. When times are propitious it grows well; when times are not so propitious, it is a little stunted. But it goes forward at the pace that its citizens and its Governments can bear. I believe that to be the crucial point of this debate.

I cannot tell, any more than my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury or the hon. Member for Newham, South can tell, what the end product will be. All I know is that, in terms of natural growth, in terms of the demands of the situation at the moment, this proposal is one of those which are necessary for the good running of the Community as it stands today, regardless of any proposals for the future. If one adds to that the somewhat idealistic point of view with which I started, that we are trying, for the first time in the history of this world, to create a totally new structure, an international Parliament directly elected by the citizens of a number of different countries who only 30 years ago were at war and giving powers, albeit limited, over the lives of the citizens of those nine countries, one sees that this debate is of paramount importance—one of the most important that we have had in this House for a long time.

The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir P. Kirk) has made a reflective and interesting speech such as I should certainly have expected. I should like to try to comment on some of the points he made as I go along. He has without question played a notable role in the European Assembly and he has considerable authority with which to address us on this important subject.

Including that of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, we have had 22 speeches so far in this debate. I have heard or read all of them, and according to my calculations 16 were in favour of direct elections, five were against, and one, that of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), was a little indeterminate, although not decisively against. There were, of course, considerable differences of emphasis on both sides of the question. Among the five who were against, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett), who had been against entry, expressed his conversion to sincere pro-Europeanism while deploying a sophisticated case against direct elections.

On the other hand the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), who I am sorry cannot be here today, clearly wished and wishes to go on fighting the referendum campaign as often as he can, using his familiar arguments—now, perhaps, a little over-familiar—to support his case. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman), my esteemed constituency neighbour, argued that elected representatives could never democratically represent electorates of 600,000-plus or populations of 1 million. That, of course, is an argument against ever having elected assemblies of reasonable size, however constituted, for really large national or international units. But I do not believe it is true.

Senators for New York or California—it should not be assumed from this that I think Europe will develop like the United States; I am dealing merely with the large electorate argument—and for the biggest cities of the United States represent 20 million inhabitants. Those for small to medium-sized States cover up to several million inhabitants. I do not think that they are necessarily out of touch with the democratic process, provided they are not the sole form of representation, or that the process is rendered in any way meaningless as a result. Indeed, it is almost certainly the case that it is more possible to judge from the provenance of a United States senator how he will speak and vote on a particular issue, whether it be the Middle East or a question of industrial or agricultural production, than is the case with a British MP operating within our tightly-organised national parties—and, of course, the assistance of the Whips—under our more intimate arrangement here. I therefore would not accept that argument.

I would not argue that the balance of 16 speeches to five necessarily gives us an exact measurement of opinion in this House, though I doubt whether Mr. Speaker would allow it to be too far out, but it suggests a strong preponderance of view. Furthermore, we in this House should feel entitled to speak for the British people on this issue at the present time. The result of the referendum was decisive and there was no attempt in the course of the campaign to suggest that we were voting simply for Europe standing still. I can speak here as President of the Britain in Europe Campaign. We constantly stressed that it was advance and not stagnation we wanted to see and that we wanted democratisation of bureaucracy, and I emphasised throughout that my fear was that Europe would go too slow rather than too fast. That remains my view.

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, can he say why the Government made no mention of direct elections in the very important document which they sent to every elector?