I beg to present a petition, which is couched in the following terms:

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

The Humble Petition of Thomas William Pond sheweth that:

1. The Petitioner is the sole Plaintiff in an action brought in the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, against the sole Defendant, News Group Newspapers Limited, the number of the action being 1978 P. No. 536.

2. In the said action the Plaintiff claims damages for libel on the basis of articles published in the News of the World newspaper, the authors of the articles being Michael Hugh Litchfield and Susan Joy Kentish.

3. In the said action issues arise as to the investigations made by Mr. Litchfield and Mrs. Kentish of pregnancy tests carried out by the Plaintiff and others, as to their methods of obtaining and recording information in the course of these investigations, and as to their use of such information in the aforesaid Newsof the World articles published following those investigations.

4. On Monday 7 July 1975, Mr. Litchfield and Mrs. Kentish gave evidence to the Select Committee on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill. The Minutes of their evidence were ordered to be printed by the House of Commons on 7 July 1975.

5. The evidence given by Mr. Litchfield and Mrs. Kentish to the said Select Committee as printed in the said Minutes of Evidence relates directly to the issues referred to in paragraph 3 hereof, and reference is desired to be made by your Petitioner in the action referred to in paragraph 1 hereof to the evidence printed in the said Minutes.

Wherefore your Petitioner prays that reference may be made in the action presently proceeding in the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, referred to herein to the said Minutes of Evidence, and that leave be given to the proper Officers of the House to attend the hearing and formally to prove the same according to their competence.

And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

T. W. Pond

"Willows"

7 Beasleys Ait,

Sunbury on Thames,

Middlesex TW16 6AS.

I therefore ask that the House will be graciously pleased to give leave for reference to be made to the said Minutes of Evidence and to the proper Officers of the House to attend the hearing and formally to prove the same according to their competence.

I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). He can make his points during the course of the debate if he catches the eye of the Chair.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

In essence this is a short and simple Bill dealing with one outstanding matter in relation to the newly elected European Assembly—the payment of salaries and pensions to the 81 representatives of the United Kingdom. It does not bear upon the development of that Assembly so far or henceforward. However, I should perhaps take the opportunity to say a word about that.

Successive Governments have thought it integral to our commitment to Europe that we should work towards the establishment of a European Parliament, not to detract from the sovereignty of this Parliament at Westminster but to enhance the accountability of the Community's institutions to its peoples. Few would have thought in 1945 that within just 35 years a Europe torn by war would be unified and with its own Parliament elected on a Community-wide franchise.

Although hon. Members have viewed this development with reactions ranging from excitement to dismay, I hope that all hon. Members will agree with me that the elections of a couple of weeks ago will be seen by future generations as a significant step on the road to European co-operation, which is surely an ideal of the highest importance. I hope also that all hon. Members will join me in wishing well those successful in the recent elections. They have an important role in looking after the country's interests within the European Community.

Having said something of the broader aspects of direct elections to the Assembly, I should like to set in narrower context the Bill before the House. As right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches will know, the Bill implements an agreement reached last December with our European partners by the previous Labour Administration.

Following agreement reached at the European Council on 4 and 5 December 1978, the Council of Ministers on 19 December decided that representatives' salaries should be the direct concern of each member State. It was decided that salaries should be set at national rates, paid out of national funds and be subject to national taxation. Following that agreement, each member State set about making its own provisions. Each member State has independently decided, as we have, that the most sensible approach to the matter would be to pay their representatives at the same rate as members of their national legislatures. We are not bound by the December agreement in any legal sense, but it would surely be wrong to disturb what was then agreed.

It may now be appropriate if I describe the individual sections of the Bill and the way in which the Government will implement the international agreement entered into by the last Administration.

First, clause 1 provides for our representatives in the European Assembly to be paid the same annual salary as Members of this Parliament. The rate of salary will take account of any changes in the rate of members' salaries, including retrospective changes, so that the arrangements are exactly on a par.

One exception is for the small number of representatives to the Assembly who are also Members of this House. The Government are not persuaded that the case has been made out for payment of an additional salary and, in this, we find ourselves much in line with the proposals made by Governments of the other major Community countries. It may be of help to the House if I explained where the other countries stand.

In Germany, legislation has already been enacted, providing for a single salary only. In France and Belgium, that is what is proposed, and Italy, too, is considering a single salary. In Denmark, legislation has been enacted for the additional salary to be abated, and that is the proposal for the Netherlands. That means that in only two countries of the Community does it seem likely that an additional salary will be paid, namely in the Republic of Ireland and possibly in Luxembourg, where legislation has yet to be introduced.

I have explained the Government's view. Those who may wish to ask the House to take a different view will, of course, have the opportunity to do so during the Committee stage, which will be on the Floor of the House.

In order to avoid misunderstanding, may I ask my right hon. Friend about his comment that in only two other countries would an additional salary be payable? Did he mean that in only two other countries would the full salaries be payable?

That is what I thought I had said. I referred to those countries where it was considered that the additional salary might be abated.

I accept what my right hon. Friend said about the opportunities that hon. Members will have to express their point of view, but it would help us in formulating our arguments if he could explain why the Government were not persuaded that an additional salary should be paid. I cannot imagine that it was because they felt under an obligation to accept the arguments of other countries that have considered the problem.

There must have been an examination of the alternatives, and it would be helpful to know why they were rejected.

Having considered the various alternatives and what other countries were doing, it was not unreasonable for us to come to the same conclusion as had many of those other countries. That is a perfectly reasonable conclusion, but if hon. Members take another view they will have the opportunity to say so in Committee. If my hon. Friend wishes to know why we took this view, it was for exactly the reasons that I have given.

It will be helpful if my right hon. Friend will explain whether the other countries to which he referred pay their Members of Parliament at the same sort of rate as British Members of Parliament are paid and whether any of those countries expect of their Members of Parliament that they will not have outside activities for which they are remunerated.

I have been in the House for far too long to allow myself to be distracted from the matter in which I am engaged to become involved in controversies on other proposals. I shall therefore avoid commenting on my hon. Friend's remarks.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is morally less good to be paid for a position to which one is elected than to be paid for work outside the House to which one is not elected?

Those who work outside the House are not paid directly by the taxpayer. They are in a different position. I do not know exactly what other countries do in relation to the outside interests of their Members of Parliament, but I shall find out the details and make them available for the Committee stage.

Is the limitation imposed by clause 1(3) a covert way of preventing Members of this House from also sitting in the European Parliament?

I do not see how that can be so. I shall be coming to other factors that will prove that it is not so. It was certainly not intended that way. We considered the arguments, just as other countries considered them, and, as we came to the same conclusion, it is reasonable to suggest that we may conceivably have been right in our judgment.

Another question relates to members of another place who have been re-elected to the European Assembly. I have read the early-day motion in the names of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen) and many other Labour Members, who feel that it is an anomaly for Members of the House of Lords who are also representatives to continue to be eligible to receive Lords' attendance allowances while they are in receipt of salaries as representatives.

We shall certainly be prepared to listen to the case that the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will put on this matter, but there is surely an important distinction between the salaries and pensions of Members of this House and the attendance allowances of members of another place. Not only are those directly related to actual attendance, but they are the equivalent of the subsistence allowance for which hon. Members are eligible, and which dual-mandated representatives from the House of Commons will continue to receive. Once again, that is a matter that may be raised in Committee.

That brings me to allowances and expenses in addition to basic salary that representatives may expect to receive. They are not covered in the Bill and were not covered in the agreement that was made by the last Administration. Instead it was accepted that under Article 142 of the Treaty of Rome, which provides that the Assembly may adopt, by a majority vote, its own rules of procedure, it will be for the Assembly to determine what should be paid as expenses to representatives. Thus, United Kingdom representatives will receive travelling allowances, for travel from the constituency to Strasbourg or Luxembourg, not from our national funds but from the Community's own budget. The free postage and telephone services which are available to hon. Members, essentially because of their constituency duties, will not be available to Assembly representatives, as they represent a member country of the Community. Whatever allowances the Assembly may choose to pay, the Government and the House have the right to expect that such expenses and allowances are subject to strict auditing procedures, and I am sure the British delegation will ensure that they are.

Clause 1 therefore provides only for the payment of a basic rate of salary, payable monthly in sterling to a United Kingdom bank. Payment will be made from the opening of the first session on 17 July to the day before the opening of the next session following the general European Assembly election in 1984. That is the period of a representative's office and it is thus appropriate that the salary should run for that period, rather than from election to election as in the Westminster scheme.

The remaining substantive clauses of the Bill deal with matters that arise directly from the payment of salaries and that it is appropriate, in our view, for the national Parliaments to handle rather than leave to the European Assembly. Again, that is the procedure that is generally being followed by our Community partners.

Did the Government consider the payment to hon. Members who are also Members of the European Assembly of an attendance allowance similar to that paid to Members of another place or even the payment of a parliamentary allowance of the sort payable to Ministers in our Government?

No, we did not do so. That is a matter that can properly be raised in Committee.

Clause 2 provides that representatives who lose their seats at a general election shall be entitled to three months' severance pay. This is exactly the same rate as that paid to hon. Members.

Clauses 3 to 5 deal with pension arrangements and provide for the establishment by order of a pensions scheme analogous to the pensions scheme for hon. Members. The order will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. It will be concerned with such matters as the status and duties of the managers of the pensions, the period of service reckonable for pension purposes, which would, of course, exclude any period in which a representative is also an hon. Member, pensions contributions, deductions, transfer payments, and transitional arrangements. I recognise that some hon. Members would prefer that those matters should be set out in the Bill rather than in subordinate legislation, and I have some sympathy for this view. But the resulting legislation would be unwieldy and inflexible if even the most technical amendment required primary legislation.

We believe that the Bill is a straightforward implementation of an agreement that this country reached with our Community partners. It is the basis on which other member States have made arrangements. I commend the Bill to the House.

On behalf of the Opposition, I support the Bill. The main principles upon which the Bill was drawn up were laid down by a man of political acumen and good sense. The previous Government did not have a Bill ready, but I see no reason to change our minds in opposition. I agree with the Home Secretary that in no way should the European Assembly detract from the supremacy of this Parliament. Accountability is of the greatest importance, as is mentioned in the Bill.

We agree with the two major aspects of the Bill, namely, that there should be national rates for members of the Assembly and that there should be no dual payment. With regard to national rates, the Home Secretary has told us that a decision was taken by the Council of Ministers at the end of 1978. Even if that decision had not been taken, I believe that to have paid the new members of the European Assembly higher salaries than those of members of this Parliament—particularly in view of what was said yesterday in this place—would have been an affront, even if the reason for that would have been our own faults.

I should like to raise a number of points because I believe that there should be a chance during the course of the Second Reading debate to receive some information in preparation for the Committee stage. I understand fully that some matters are best left to the Committee stage but if other information could be made available beforehand the Committee stage would be much more fruitful.

The Home Secretary said quite properly that the allowances that were to be paid to the members of the Assembly were a matter for the European Assembly. However, it would be useful to know the nature of the allowances. I shall raise some questions arising out of that matter that have been put to me on behalf of Labour Members in Europe who have already encountered problems. The matter has a bearing on the general principles of the Bill.

In my days as Home Secretary we were beginning to discuss the question of a provincial allowance. Will the normal rules of national taxation be applied to the members of the European Assembly? Will the Inland Revenue continue its present practice of not taxing expenses that can be demonstrated to have been incurred but of taxing any profit made on those expenses? How will the Board of Inland Revenue deal with those matters? We should be able to compare that treatment with the way in which hon. Members in this Parliament are treated.

I understand that provided there are at least 30 qualifying days of absence from the United Kingdom during the tax year, 25 per cent. of the earnings attributable to a member of the European Assembly's duties that are performed abroad, including any profit from expenses, are tax-free. I hope that these matters can be made clear.

Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that there will be a profit on expenses or is he saying that, should a profit be declared inadvertently, that profit will go to the Inland Revenue rather than be returned to the paying authority?

My information comes from the current arrangements for Members of this House who are in Europe. I am asking the Home Secretary or his Minister for clarity on that point—I am not suggesting anything. I should like to have the information in preparation for the Committee stage.

I understand that if anyone works outside the United Kingdom for more than six months of any one year his liability for national insurance contributions may be affected by EEC regulations. How does that liability apply to members of the Assembly in Europe? As I understand it, they will be in that position. A number of other matters have been put to me by Labour Members of Parliament who have lost their jobs on election. That may well be true of Conservative Members of the Assembly but I shall put the point on behalf of Labour Members. Some of them have not had a job since polling day on 7 June. It will be difficult for them to try for a job in the short run. It is bad enough for hon. Members who lose their seats in this place.

I understand that elected members do not receive any salary or allowance until 17 July and that they will not be paid until the middle of August. It is under our control when the money is paid; it is not a matter for the European Assembly. I hope that the Home Secretary will examine the matter. It is strange that elected members will not receive any money until 17 July when those who are elected to this House are paid from about the day after polling day. Those elected to the European Assembly will be without any form of payment for about five weeks.

In this country—unlike all the other countries—we have members representing constituencies. The one that I know best, based on the city of Leeds, is the six present Leeds constituencies plus two others, making eight in all. Some Conservative Members represent large rural constituencies and may have to travel many more miles in their constituencies than will other hon. Members. I understand that travel warrants and car payments are a matter for the European Parliament. However, the matter will be considered not from the point of view of constituencies but from a list system point of view. I emphasise that I would not wish us to be involved in that type of system—despite arguments that I have put forward here from time to time in a slightly different context. It has been brought to my attention that, for example, in Leeds, the Members travel to eight constituencies in the course of a day and receive no petrol or travel allowance. That matter should be brought to the attention of the Council of Ministers or the appropriate body.

Will the right hon. Gentleman associate with this point and an earlier one that he made the fact that travel allowances and expenditure between the place of work and home are taxable? In this case, the place of work is a great deal further away. That is a further anomaly that should be examined.

I am grateful to the hon Gentleman for raising that point. It was one that I had not included on my list, but it is an adjunct to my point about tax.

Labour Members have been giving much thought to the fact that we hope that contact will be maintained between members of the European Assembly, Members of the House of Commons and the party headquarters in London. They will have to travel to London.

My understanding is that no thought is being given to this aspect in terms of payment for travel between home and Brussels, or wherever it might be, and London. I hope that we can consider that aspect as well on behalf of our members of the Assembly. When we were talking about the general principles of the Act, I remembered that the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) rightly raised this issue. He talked in a gradiose manner about British members of the Assembly perhaps being made Members of the House of Lords so that they could have closer contact with this Parliament. We are not going in that direction, but we should certainly be thinking about the financial problems incurred by British members of the Assembly travelling to London.

There is also the problem of the franking of mail, which I confess I had not thought of myself. Our British members will have considerable mailing to do in this country. Each of them represents eight Westminster parliamentary constituencies, and whether a constituency be industrial or rural a large amount of mail will be generated. During my time in this place the free franking service for Members' correspondence has developed, but what is to happen to our European members in this country? There can be no franking service from the European Parliament which would have any authority here. I hope that some way can be found whereby our members of the Assembly can be supplied with OHMS envelopes.

Two other points have been raised with me which must be looked at. The first is that some correspondence is already being generated for our members of the Assembly. In no way can they say "We will reply after 17 July". They are, therefore, already incurring considerable expenditure. I hope that, in advance of anything done in the Bill, if that is the appropriate way to do it, the Government will, through the appropriate channels, consider what help can be given for the work already being generated for our Assembly members.

Secondly, there is the question of the spouse warrant. This has been a valuable development during my 16 years in this House, and the Labour Members of the Assembly would be grateful if the Government would look at this aspect as well, as it concerns our Members of the Assembly. All of this arises out of the national-rate-of-pay principle, which I agree is the right course to follow.

There seems to be some feeling about the dual mandate problem. I was checking another point yesterday and found that it was the sixteenth anniversary of my entry into this House. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful to hon. Members. It happened to be a day when we had a rumpus on the Floor of the House. Our pay then was remarkably low, although, of course, worth a good deal more than it appears now. I remember saying to a friend that I made in the early days "How do you live on this pay?" He replied "Get yourself a job." That was the first piece of advice that I received in this House. However, no job came along for me.

I see the philosophical argument that a part-time Member of Parliament picks up strength from outside and does not just move between Chamber and Tea Room and back, but it does not invalidate the argument for people who devote the greater part of their time to the House and who carry the House and do the greater part of the work. The question looms larger with the proposed development of Select Committees, and whether they are the great revolution that the Leader of the House thinks or just an evolutionary development does not matter.

I do not believe that people should be paid twice by the Government for the same period of time in which they are working in the service of the community. This links precisely with the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) in an early-day motion concerning the complications of the money received in another place. I believe it right that members of the Assembly who are also Members of the House of Lords should not be paid twice over.

The Opposition support the Bill in principle. I have raised a number of points on which I hope we can have answers in readiness for the Committee stage. We wish the Bill well and, despite all the arguments, discussions and strong feelings about the principle, we wish the members of the Assembly well. Over the years, I think that the work they do will develop in a way different from the work we do here. From time to time, just as we consider our own pay and allowances, we shall have to look at what is appropriate for the European Assembly Members. This is the first bite at the cake of payment to European Members. As I have said, we shall have to look at this question again, but the Opposition believe that the Bill is well worth supporting.

I hope that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) will forgive me if I do not follow the interesting points that he raised. The only point that he made that I specifically endorse—it was also made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—is that we wish the new members of the Assembly well in their task. The argument that I want to voice is related to the status and the ability to perform the job of present members and future members.

My right hon. Friend has a wide experience of this place. He has been here many years and has served it in many capacities. He has been Chief Whip, amongst other heavy offices that have fallen to him, and he knows as well as anyone that, broadly speaking, the House gets on best with the Government of the day when the Government take the House into their confidence. He knows that the chances of the Government of the day carrying the House with them without difficulty or dispute are increased when they tell the House why they have decided what they have decided.

I digress for a moment to point out that, if we had had more awareness yesterday of the reasons for the Government's decision on the phasing of Member's pay, some of the undignified aspects of that scene might, happily, have been avoided.

I make these two points in tandem because I want to touch upon an important principle of the Bill. Clause 1(3) is the provision that Members of this House who are also elected members of the European Parliament shall receive no remuneration for the second elective task that the people have asked them to take on. I am sorry to have to put it like this, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not misunderstand me, but he did not increase the impression that this was a defensible decision by spending a great deal of time defending it.

I have four questions, the answers to which would help me at least to understand what is in the Government's mind. I hope that the Minister of State who will wind up can confirm that this decision is not based upon the dangerous argument that because members of the European Parliament will receive generous expenses they should rely upon those to make good the shortfall in their remuneration. If there is any such thought in the minds of the Governments I direct their attention to a passage in the Boyle report in Chapter 2, paragraph 14. That reads:

"We are aware of a growing tendency to identify MPs' remuneration as the sum of the salary level and the maxima of the main allowances … But this approach is wrong. The principle of the allowances is that they are intended to reimburse the expenditure that an MP necessarily incurs in pursuit of Parliamentary duties. They are not intended as additional remuneration."

I would have thought that the same approach must hold true of the European Parliament. I am encouraged to believe that this is so because of my right hon. Friend's remarks about the strict audit that will be properly maintained over these expenses. I hope that no reliance will be placed on that argument. I would be grateful if my hon. and learned Friend will confirm that in terms when he winds up the debate.

I hope that those on the Government Front Bench are not under the impression that any of us who are arguing a case contrary to theirs wish to see Members who have a dual mandate receiving two salaries in full. That is remote from my intention. I am saying that they should receive some remuneration. Whatever the Irish may decide—the Irish have a capacity for getting things wrong that we should not overlook—we should not fall into the same trap. It would be downgrading the argument. It is also worth remembering that there are members of this House, not only on one side, who do not receive the full parliamentary salary for the office that they hold. They receive another salary. One of their salaries is therefore abated.

I hope also that the hon. and learned Gentleman will confirm that the Government are not resting their case on the argument that there should be a commitment to full-time membership of this House that precludes the useful performance of any other elected job outside it—that it would be impossible for a Member holding the dual mandate to make a useful contribution to Europe simply because he should be here all the time. If that is so, it is a most dangerous precedent. I do not believe that many hon. Members on either side would be prepared to accept that precedent in this or several other contexts.

I now come to the most important question that I want to put. Was any serious consideration given to the payment of an abated European salary to Members holding a dual mandate? I realise that we have no power in this legislation and therefore presumably no opportunity to provide for abatement of their House of Commons salary, which might have been a more satisfactory answer. We cannot do that.

Parliament can do anything.

The hon. Gentleman may be right, and if he is he will no doubt explain why he is right. But it would confuse the issue if we attempted that here. It may be difficult to draw up an amendment to the Bill as it is drawn.

Why was an abated salary apparently dismissed out of hand? It is not enough to rely on the argument that we are doing much the same as other European countries. As far as I can see, they are not doing much the same among themselves. I am certain that if we attempt to rely on that argument it can be rebutted by pointing out that we are not comparing like with like, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) pointed out. There are fundamental differences in salary scales between members of European Parliaments and Members of this Parliament. I do not believe that the Government Front Bench can say that we must keep in step with all the others because they have taken a reasonably correct decision based on situations identical with those preferred here. That is not so.

We should make our own decision in the light of the circumstances that apply here and with which we are familiar. I do not accept that we should be persuaded easily to adopt a course that was advocated to us on the basis that we are obliged slavishly to adhere to decisions taken by the other eight members of the Community.

I hope that I have made my point in a form that the Government Front Bench can accept and understand. If progress is to be made with this measure, as I hope it will be, I trust that I and other hon. Members, who feel as I do, will hear before the end of the debate some more positive assurance that we can return to this matter in Committee. I hope that we can hear an indication of sympathetic consideration to the payment of an abated salary to Members who will be doing two full jobs and whose full effectiveness must be in the interests of every one of us here.

It is extraordinary how petty and almost spiteful Governments can become when they discusss the salaries of Members of this House or the salaries of elected representatives of the European Assembly. It is odd that this Bill should be before us at all. I suppose the reason why we are asked to pass the Bill today is that it is an attempt to persuade us that we do not belong to a federal institution called the European Economic Community. It is the case that in the Treaty of Rome to which we have adhered there is provision for an Assembly of that institution. It would have been possible to pass a uniform electoral law, although it was not, of course, done.

There are separate electoral laws in all the nine countries and we now have a situation in which some members of that Assembly, in respect of salaries, will be much more equal than others. The Germans presumably will be able to look with a certain degree of patronage upon their poor British brethren, who will be getting a lower salary. Everywhere in Europe, except in Ireland, representatives get a higher salary than here. I believe that the Irish salary is the only one that competes with ours as a way of saving public expenditure.

If we are to have a Bill, one would think that it would at least do the job and pay a salary to all the representatives who are elected. But it is a strange phenomenon that this will be true not of all 81 representatives but of all but five of the 81.

Four.

The hon. Gentleman says four. He is thinking of his own party. There are four Conservatives and one person from Northern Ireland, who is not a member of the Conservative Party. I understand that four plus one still equals five.

The hon. Gentleman is certainly sharp today.

I do not believe that it is part of the job of this institution to discriminate against any of its Members for any reason unless there is some reason very much in the public interest. We have customarily said hitherto that all Back Benchers should receive the same salary. One slight difference has been mentioned. Ministers do not receive quite the same salary as other MPs. They receive a total remuneration that is greater because they are Ministers and precluded from undertaking outside work. But the salary of a Minister as a Member of Parliament is abated.

A similar arrangement could be made for those hon. Members who are also Members of the European Assembly. Clearly a Member of both assemblies will spend a little less time here than he would otherwise. Since the European elections, our colleagues in the European Assembly have been active on these premises. I am sure that they will be active again just as many of our colleagues were when they were appointed Members of the European Assembly.

Will we have an opportunity to deal with this anomaly in Committee? Normally Back Bench Members—even Ministers other than Treasury Ministers—are not allowed to move an amendment which would result in an increase in public expenditure. I hope that the Government will not be petty minded and say that a few thousands of pounds multiplied by five represents an increase in public expenditure and that therefore we shall be precluded from moving an amendment and voting upon it.

I hope that we shall have the answer to that before we consider the money resolution. It will be no good if we are told that we cannot move an amendment to change clause 1(3) merely because it falls outside the terms of the money resolution. I hope that the Government will not rest on such a petty technicality in order to defend the Bill.

The Bill should be passed. However, if it discriminates against five members of the European Parliament or if the House is not to be allowed even to consider whether it should, we must oppose the whole Bill, even though instructions to the draftsman were given by my right hon. Friends. We cannot approve a Bill of this character if we are not to be allowed to deal with those matters about which most hon. Members have reservations.

I shall support the Bill because something must be done about those who were fortunate in the elections and will be going to Strasbourg next month. I would rather something were done, however inadequate, than reject the Bill. I wish to ensure its Second Reading.

The Home Secretary and my right hon. Friends in government have had some consultation with hon. Members about how best to do the job, bearing in mind that the decision was taken last December by the then British Government. If not hostile to British membership of the EEC, the last Government were well aware of the value that we put upon it. They were aware that many of their supporters were hostile to direct elections. I believe that the draftsman received some of his early instructions from the previous Government in spite of what the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said.

The word "Assembly" appears in the Bill. It is an Assembly of the European Communities, but now I want it to be known as a Parliament, as it has been referred to. An assembly constituency is defined in the Bill. We are talking about representatives, a word used in the Bill, too.

I hope, through practice or some other development, that members of the European Parliament will have the right to put "MEP" after their names and that we shall understand the difference between "MEP" and "MP". In some documents I have been referred to as "MEP" as well as "MP"—but not as a representative, as implied in this Bill.

The Home Secretary referred to those who were successful in the elections. I wish them success. They will be European members of Parliament. I hope that they will regard their status as that of a European member of Parliament rather than a delegate from Britain.

Is it not time that we dropped the PR approach? We know why the European Assembly is so called. It is neither a court nor a legislature. When the word "Parliament" was first used in 1236 in Paris and London it referred to a court that was also, to a certain extent, a legislature. It has been so since then in Britain.

The European Assembly is entitled to that name under the Treaty of Rome. Members of it are entitled to be called members of that Assembly. Can we not stop trying to arrogate to something the style and title of a parliament to which, even according to its founding document, it is not entitled?

The hon. Member is entitled to his view. I shall not embark upon the course that he wishes me to follow. The word "Assembly" was relevant before. I speak as one who put himself forward as a candidate for membership of the European Parliament. Many of us were willing to do that before the election. My position was slightly more difficult, as a reasonable Euro-constituency was difficult to find near my home. I was the one Conservative Member of Parliament in 17 seats when an election could have taken place at any time before or after direct elections to the European Parliament. It was always my intention to contest Hallam in the general election.

The primary selection procedure adopted by the Conservative Party was unique and vigorous and I was not selected to do the dual mandate. I have had the privilege of meeting some Conservative candidates who were elected. There is a good team from the Government side. I am sure that the Opposition can speak for their own team.

I turn to the question of payment of salaries by national Parliaments. An agreement was reached by the Council of Ministers in December due to pressure from the Biritish Government. I regret that decision, I hope that salaries soon will be paid by the European institutions and Parliament.

Not only are European Commissioners paid at a higher international rate than is proposed for our members of the European Parliament; so are officials of the European Parliament, of all grades, whether they work for party groups or for the committees. Our directly elected members will receive remuneration which is less than that of most officials serving them. This was true before direct elections.

The right hon. Member for Leeds, South asked about taxation and the system of allowances. A pattern had developed in the Community before the entry of the three new countries, which took membership from six to nine. There is a difference of opinion between the institutions of the Community and the Inland Revenue about the way in which those should be treated. It has been up to members of the European Parliament from this country to make their own arrangements with the Inland Revenue. That is for those who are there now and who will finish on 16 July. Thereafter there is a problem, and I very much hope that the Home Secretary will look into it.

Much has already been said on the question of the dual mandate. In the 1950s it was undoubtedly the practice for Members of this House to have other interests, whether in the professions, agriculture or business. This was accepted. However, I have sensed, in the 20-odd years that I have been in the House, particularly with the Liberal and Socialist groups and audiences at election times, a pressure to make this Parliament a full-time Parliament and make Members of Parliament more or less full time. This has been reflected in the register of Members' interests. This is contrary to the practice in Switzerland. I went to Berne to visit the Swiss Parliament and discovered that to a very great extent the Swiss are part-time Members of Parliament with other interests.

The question raised is that we are now moving to full-time Parliaments in most countries of the Community. I accept that. We should bear in mind that those who have been successful in the direct elections will be able to go to the European Parliament and, in some cases, continue their consultancies and their professional work here. Those with the dual mandate—whether the four hon. Members on the Conservative side or the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—will be at a slight disadvantage. On the issue of the dual mandate, I hope that we can find a formula for giving some assistance, such as Ministers enjoy, particularly under the new scheme, to account for the fact that they are undertaking a second public role whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation may be.

There has been much discussion about the domestic arrangements for the newly elected Euro-members of Parliament, whether elected directly or otherwise, who operate under the dual mandate We must bear in mind that those Members should have adequate allowances from the European Parliament. The trouble is that we have the Euro-constituency system. I think that it was right for this country to adopt it and I supported the decision, but there must be adequate expense allowances to enable members of the European Parliament to travel freely within their Euro-constituencies because the salary offered to those who have no other interests is hardly adequate to allow that.

This should all come from the European Parliament and I hope that my right hon. Friends in the Government will keep in close touch with their other Ministers to ensure that these allowances are acceptable. One of the difficulties that we shall face in this country is that because the Euro-constituencies are directly elected, Euro-members will find it costly, perhaps inconvenient and difficult to come to the centre of the national Parliament—the House of Commons. This will be in contrast to the other Community countries. Allowances will help for the extra night in London and this must be looked at. I still think that this House must make formal and informal arrangements to allow for dialogue and communication between those going to Strasbourg, Luxembourg and Brussels and those who are Members of this House and of other national Parliaments.

Perhaps the formation of a grand committee, which will obviously be discussed at another time, will help to resolve this situation. Membership of some of our Select Committees might be acceptable and help in resolving this. Perhaps the party committees can overcome this problem. I hope that the British Government will give some thought, with the various groups, to ensuring that those who are directly elected have a reason for keeping in touch with Members of Parliament in Westminster If that does not happen they will be sorely tempted to go their own way. Above all, they must have the allowances to do the job for which they were elected last month.

I am totally opposed to this Bill and to show my opposition I shall attempt to divide the House at the conclusion of the debate. The Bill is wrong in principle, extremely doubtful legally in Community law and ridiculous in its application.

It is wrong in principle because, since the direct elections, the newly elected members of the European Parliament derive their authority from the electorate, however many may have voted in one country or another. It is, therefore, ridiculous and nonsensical that this Parliament should be discussing the salaries of members of another Parliament. If we cast our minds back to the statement made yesterday we remember that the Leader of the House continually said to those Members who were complaining about British Members' salaries that that was a matter for the House of Commons to decide.

Equally, it is for the members of the European Parliament to decide their salaries. It is not for national Parliaments to make that decision. As the Home Secretary said, this situation came about because of a decision passed down from the European Council through the Council of Ministers. I very much doubt the legality of that decision in Community law. When asked a question about expenses for the newly elected members of the European Parliament, the Home Secretary quoted article 142 of the Treaty of Rome, which says:

"The Assembly shall adopt its rules of procedure, acting by a majority of its members. The proceedings of the Assembly shall be published in the manner laid down in its rules of procedure."

If that article is a justification—the Home Secretary said that it was—for having expenses paid by the new European Parliament, it is equally a justification that salaries should be decided and paid by the new European Parliament. This matter was raised in the European Parliament, and I am sure that the Minister who is to reply will be fully acquainted with our debates in that Parliament. I have before me the official translation of the debate in December 1978. On page 133 we see that a number of questions were asked on this issue. I asked:

"I would like to ask a very precise question. Which section of the Treaty gives the Council of Ministers the right to settle the salaries of the new Members of the directly elected Parliament?"

The reply was given by Mr. von Dohnanyi, the spokesman for the Council of Ministers. I remind the House that when a question is asked in the European Parliament a reply given by the spokesman is the reply given by all Members of the Council. Replies to questions are vetted and approved by all member countries. Mr. von Dohnanyi was not speaking as a German; he was speaking as the representative of the Council of Ministers. He referred me to article 13 of the Act of 1976. We had a long exchange of views before eventually coming to that article that is contained in the Act of 20 September 1976, which set up direct elections.

That article says:

"Should it appear necessary to adopt measures to implement this Act, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Assembly after consulting the Commission, shall adopt such measures after endeavouring to reach agreement with the Assembly in a conciliation committee consisting of the Council and representatives of the Assembly."

That is typical EEC gobbledegook. Mr. von Dohnanyi was asked on several occasions what that meant. He was asked, among others, by Lord Bessborough. He had a rough time of it, all in all. The position was rather similar to that which was experienced in the House yesterday on the issue of Members' pay. Eventually he had to say:

"I would repeat that it is not essential to go through legal channels alone in order to reach agreement on this issue."

Before the Minister replies I ask him to look at the proceedings of that Question Time in the European Assembly. I do not believe that there is any legality in the decision made by the Council of Ministers. I understand that it is to be challenged in the European Court. I hope that it is and I hope that the Court will give a judgment on the issue.

I had a great deal of acrimonious correspondence with Mr. Frank Judd, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the time that this was going on. I would like the Minister to give us the legal justification in the Treaty of Rome for producing this measure. I do not want just a practical justification.

I have said that this measure will create absurdities. This point has also been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). It will mean that there will be a wide difference in salary levels between two people sitting side by side in the European Parliament and doing exactly the same job. One such member will receive four times the rate of another. Even if Boyle is implemented in full, the difference will mean that one member will be getting twice as much as another. If such a situation arose on the factory floor, the trade unionists would be up in arms.

The point that I would like to make—

Face the Chair.

Do not be so childish. There is something wrong with you people over there. You are childish. The point that I am trying to make to my hon. Friend is that he should be clear about the way in which people are paid in other parts of Europe and here. I know more about how people are paid here. There are differing standards in this place. Until Members of Parliament become full-time Members there will be a wide differential.

There are people who never turn up at the House of Commons except on occasions such as yesterday, when they turned up to bellow and squeal for £12,000 straight away. They were here in force then but, a few minutes later, when we were debating the plight of people who would lose their jobs as a result of the demise of the Manpower Services Commission, there were only about 30 Members left in the Chamber.

My hon. Friend must get his facts right. He must not give the impression to the world outside that all Members of Parliament are at it all the time and are paid equally as a result. Some are working all the time and some are doing hardly anything and making money outside in all sorts of moonlighting jobs, just as many of them are absent today

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) may look very much better to us when we view him from behind rather than from the front. However, is it not right that he should address the Chair, that he should not refer to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that he should keep his feet within the red line?

I believe that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was in some difficulty. He was trying to address his remarks to his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) behind him. I must point out to hon. Members that they are sup posed to address the Chair.

It is my fault. If I had known what the intervention was to be I would not have given way. I might have expected it. It is of course true that some people have outside interests and that some people in this House do not do a full-time job. But they are all paid the same salary. I want members of the European Parliament to be full-time members. I do not want them to continue with their consultancies, and so on. The worst thing that we could get would be groups of members of the European Parliament going out to the European Assembly and being representative of ICI and all the other large groups. I want these members to be full-time members. There would be an objection if there were people working side by side on the factory floor and there was such a difference in their pay It is just as ridiculous in this case.

The present European Parliament took a reasonable view on this matter. It put forward a proposal to the Council of Ministers for a uniform salary. It was not pitched at the highest end of the scale but was roughly what Boyle would give us when implemented in full. It was about £12,000, adjusted by a formula well known in Europe for dealing with differences in the cost of living in various countries. The European Assembly did not say "We shall pay everyone the Germany salary, the French salary or the Dutch salary." It reached a reasonable compromise, which was, however, rejected by the Council of Ministers, largely, I am told, at the instigation of the previous British Government.

I object to this Bill in principle and shall seek to divide the House against it. I do not expect to carry the Division. Many of the details that have been discussed arise because we are doing this task the wrong way. If we were to do it the other way none of the problems would have arisen in the same form. There is one point that I would make in support of the Opposition Front Bench. It has to do with the question of when the payment starts. We have always held that payment should start from the date of an election. It is true that a number of people had to give up their jobs from the date of the election on 7 June. They will not be paid officially until 17 July and the payment will not be received until the middle or end of August.

I ask others to join me in voting against the Bill and demonstrating that it is nonsense. The Front Benches have equal responsibility for the Bill. It does not make sense, and the quicker the whole thing is scrapped the better.

I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) because I find myself in substantial agreement with a great deal of what he said. I shall confine myself to one specific point. It is not a Committee point. It refers to clause 1(3). The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) referred to this. We warmly congratulate the right hon. Member on his 16 years in this House. I entered it 24 years ago together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and also with Peter Kirk whose views on this Bill would, I suspect, have been very strong.

The right hon. Member for Leeds, South referred to the action taken by the Council of Ministers. I refer the House to the text of the statement made by the then Minister on 6 December. Referring to the Foreign Ministers' meeting he said:

"They agreed that the emoluments should be based on those of Members of national Parliaments and be subject to national taxation."—[Official Report, 6 December 1978; Vol. 959, c. 1423.]

There is certainly nothing in that statement to say that some hon. Members elected to the European Parliament shall receive no salary at all. That is what clause 1(3) says.

The Home Secretary referred in rather general terms to what has been done in other countries. In a written answer only yesterday, he said:

"Most member States have not yet enacted legislation dealing with this matter. As soon as complete information is available, I shall publish it in the Official Report."—[Official Report, 21 June 1979; Vol. 968, c. 633.]

The information which I have so far received—it comes from the European Parliament information office—gives these particulars regarding dual mandate. Italy is paying no second salary, the Netherlands is paying a total which would be one and a half times the national parliamentary salary, Germany is to pay dual mandate Members at the moment an unspecified amount of tax-free expenses in respect of Assembly membership, Ireland is paying both salaries and so is Denmark, France is now reconsidering the matter, and although the position in regard to Belgium and Luxembourg is not clear my latest information is that they will be paying at least some salary to those who have the dual mandate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) rightly referred to the section in the Boyle report dealing with the whole question of the use and misuse of allowances. I have nothing to add to that, but I wish to emphasise one other point that he made. I am certainly not asking that those hon. Members who have a dual mandate should receive two parliamentary salaries, but in my view they are absolutely entitled to some salary, to some recognition of the important work which they are doing in Europe on behalf of their constituents.

I was one of those opposed to the dual mandate. It seemed to me to be an impossibility in practical terms. It may well be that I shall be proved wrong. But certainly the dual mandate was perfectly legal. Five of our colleagues on these Benches were successful in being adopted and then being elected. They will be our link between this House and the European Parliament, and it would seem to be a shabby way of starting that relationship, and certainly a poor way of recognising the advent of the European Assembly, if we were to pass the Bill unamended.

I ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, whom I warmly congratulate on his appointment, to take the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) about the financial resolution and to assure us, first, that he has listened with sympathy to the points which we have made, and second, that there, is no question of our being denied the opportunity to move an amendment to clause 1(3) in Committee.

But, best of all, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend, in recognition of the feeling which clearly exists in the House, and certainly in the Conservative Party, will commit the Government to looking at this matter again between now and Committee.

There is a good deal of uneasiness in my mind not only about the principles underlying the Bill but about the details of it as well. We are embarking upon new territory and, naturally, a lot of questions have to be asked and answered. Some of them have been asked. No doubt more will be asked in Committee, though whether we shall get satisfactory answers is another matter.

Not the least important question, which has not been given sufficient attention by any of the parties in this country, is the question of the public accountability of the new species of parliamentary animal which we are now creating. For instance, it is difficult to know how a new European member can be answerable or accountable to 500,000 electors. How on earth can he hold a weekend or monthly surgery? If he held one, what would it be about? It could not be about housing, about pensions or about income tax, because none of those things come within his orbit.

Moreover, how are these members to be accountable to the parties in this country in whose names they stood and were elected? In my party we have 17 European members. How on earth are they to be accountable either to their local constituency parties or to the headquarters of the party in Transport House? It is impossible. It is impossible to make them accountable in any way. How are they to be disciplined, for example, in the way they vote or the way they speak in the European Parliament? They are virtually free agents. Once they get overseas, they are virtually political mavericks, accountable to no one. They sit there for five years, drawing whatever expenses and salary are available to them, and no one can touch them.

I take it that the hon. Gentleman is correctly describing from first-hand knowledge the arrangements which may or may not be made in his party. I ask him to accept that that is not an accurate description of the arrangements within the Conservative Party. There is an active constituency organisation and it is as capable of exercising discipline over readoption as is any other constituency association in relation to Members of this House.

I would not presume to speak for the Tory Party—God forbid that I should—and I am concerned only with my party. Whatever arrangements the Tories make is a matter for them, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that if he thinks that, for example, that chap Plumb, who went as an ex-president of the National Farmers' Union, will pay more attention to the Tory Party and less to the NFU, he had better think again. People of that kind are there to protect vested interests. There can be no doubt about that. That is why they stood. That is why they have been elected, and that is the job that they will do. That is what I worry about more than somewhat.

In my view, the principle of paying only one salary is absolutely right. I say that because in my opinion—I speak from four years of experience in the current Assembly as a representative of my party there and here—it is physically and mentally impossible to do either job satisfactorily. Anyone who is honest and objective about it must accept that.

For example, next Monday we shall be debating a proposition to transform the House of Commons, so the Leader of the House alleges—transforming the relationship between the legislature and the Executive by establishing a dozen Select Committees to examine and cross-examine in detail on the workings and policies of particular Government Departments. The members of those Committees must be full-time Members of this House. They could not do the job effectively if they were not. By definition, it will be impossible for Members of this House elected also to the European Parliament to serve on those Select Committees.

Moreover, apart from the question of serving on those Select Committees, it will be physically impossible for hon. Members who now have the dual mandate regularly to attend this House. They will not do it.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me. I made special reference to the dual mandate. I had hoped that there would be many more instances of the dual mandate in this country, at least for the first five years. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind—I asked the Library for an estimate—that the Germans have 26 Members on dual mandate, Holland has 9, France has 22 and Belgium has 15. Those countries have committee systems, and they have overcome the difficulty. But the point of my earlier remarks was to accept that, sooner rather than later, we in this country will reach a stage when we shall expect Members of Parliament to be full-time, and therefore to that extent I accord with the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. If he considers the number of sitting days of the Parliaments to which he has referred, he will find that the Westminster Parliament has more working days per year than the other assemblies in Europe put together.

The more I see of other Parliaments throughout the world, not only in Europe, the better I feel about own own Parliament. Let no one denigrate the effectiveness or the efficiency of our Parliament compared to other Parliaments.

rose—

I must proceed. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) and I have been part-time Members of the House and of the European Assembly over the past four years. On that basis we were attending an average of 120 to 130 working days per year in Brussels, Strasbourg or Luxembourg. There can be no doubt that when the elected Assembly begins its work on 16 July it will extend that period. It will not be satisfied with one week's plenary session a month. It will have to justify its existence. It will argue for more committee work in Brussels and more plenary session work in Strasbourg or Luxembourg.

The four or five European members who are also Members of the House will be virtually absentee Westminster Members. Let no one shed too many tears about the financial hardships that European members will endure because of the miserable salaries that they receive from Westminster.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said that article 142 makes it clear that the rules on expenses are under the control of the Assembly, including travel expenses Those expenses—anyone who has attended the Assembly knows this very well—are exceedingly generous by United Kingdom standards, although they have to be considered in the context of the cost of living expenses in the Community. Living in Strasbourg, Luxembourg or Brussels is an expensive undertaking.

There can be no doubt that the Assembly will take into consideration the conditions under which United Kingdom Members serve. They will undoubtedly increase expense allowances. There is no shadow of doubt in my mind that the Assembly will exercise its right under article 142 to take account of the alleged hardships likely to be incurred by British Members.

There are secretarial expenses allowed in this place. There are also secretarial allowances in the Assembly. Will Members with dual mandates be entitled to the full secretarial allowances available both here and at the Assembly? If they are so entitled and those allowances are not taxable, that will be an important source of income.

Some of our European members may take up permanent or semi-permanent residence in Europe. I understand that in the building under construction in Luxembourg provision was to be made for flat accommodation within the confines of the new Parliament building. The French Government are anxious that the permanent seat of the European Parliament should be in Strasbourg. To induce the Council of Ministers to accept the idea of a permanent Assembly in Strasbourg, the French Government could say "We shall provide flat accommodation for these Members."

If that is so, and European members decide to reside more or less permanently in Europe, will their salaries be paid from the United Kingdom Treasury? Their salaries will not be subject to United Kingdom taxation if they are permanently residing in Europe. They could say "You just pay me my salary." That needs clarification.

The European Parliament constituencies cover enormous areas. That will mean enormous mileage allowances. Take, for example, the Highlands of Scotland. Nearly half of Scotland comprises one constituency, and the member elected for that constituency is not a Member of this place. Will that member be entitled to claim the mileage allowances paid by this Parliament, or will she receive a generous mileage allowance from the Community? If the job is to be done properly that could mean travelling thousands of miles a month.

For a long period I have been an ardent supporter of the European concept. Since the end of the war, I have believed that more involvement in Europe would be better for both the United Kingdom and Europe. So many boats have been missed by successive United Kingdom Governments. There is an appalling story of neglect, and almost hostility, to the concept that Britain should be closely linked with Europe.

After some experience I have come to the conclusion that the Treaty of Rome, and all other treaties, are much too tightly drawn. We are not able to fit in happily with them. We should loosen the shackles and the existing links with Europe. I am very dubious about the extent to which the Bill is projecting us on the right course.

Many questions will be asked by British taxpayers. The exchanges earlier today on the CAP did nothing to allay anxieties. I hope that the British Government, regardless of political complexion, will look with jaundiced eyes on all future developments in Europe. However, I hope that they will accept that we need intimate family links with Europe. It would not be to our advantage to sign a treaty which tied us down in more ways than we would like.

I look forward to the discussions in Committee. I hope that the Government will be flexible when considering amendments. I hope that they will provide as much information as possible prior to Committee, on the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South. The more information available before Committee the less prolonged that stage will be.

I could not disagree more with the philosophy of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) about our duties in and out of the House. I came here as an amateur politician. I suppose the criticism may be made that I have remained one. I came here 10 years before the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). That is a long time. We are not required, unless we are members of a Committee or wish to attend a Friday sitting, to attend the House until 2.30 p.m. I thought that I was better occupied and a better Member of Parliament if I spent time in my professional office rather than the Tea Room, the Smoking Room or the bars in the House. In that way I have kept contact with the effect of our actions on the public and of our laws on my clients. I thought I could spend my time better in that way. I look upon our job not as that of full-time professional politicians but as one to which we bring knowledge of the outside world.

I was shocked when I first read clause 1(3). I wondered if the Government were nailing their flag to the mast of the principle that no Member of Parliament should have any outside interests, that he should be here from the early hours of the morning to late at night and concentrate entirely on his attendance in this building—and certainly that he should have no paid interest outside the House.

I was interested in the argument that clause 1(3) is not in accordance with Community law. I do not know whether the clause is in agreement with that law, or with the agreement between the Ministers, about which we have heard, that each State should decide on the salaries to be paid to its members of the European Assembly. However, neither Community law nor that agreement provide that some members of the Assembly should not receive a salary. It sounds such a ludicrous proposition that I could not believe it was in the Bill. Nevertheless clause 1(3) provides that no salary shall be payable to some representatives in certain circumstances—the circumstances being that Members of this House should not receive any salary for attendance and duty in the European Assembly.

I did not gather from the speech of the Home Secretary when he introduced the Bill that the Government believed that Members of Parliament should be full-time Members and have no outside interests. I do not think that he put over that principle. With great respect to him, I found it difficult to understand what principle he was putting to us in support of clause 1(3). I thought he said that those who held the dual mandate would, in the absence of this provision, be paid two salaries, both coming from the taxpayer. It could be said that such Members were servants of the Crown, or were paid by the Crown, and should not be paid two salaries by the Crown.

I take that to be the principle on which the clause is based. There is a precedent for that in the case of Ministers. The general law is that someone who holds office under the Crown and is paid by the taxpayer should not be a Member of this House. However, we make many exceptions to that. The exception that especially applies to the present case is that of Ministers.

A Minister does not attend every moment of the proceedings of the House and join in all our debates, or even keep track of everything that goes on. He is too busy with his job as a Minister. In the same way, those who become members of the European Assembly may not be able to spend all their time in the performance of their duties in this House. A compromise may be based on the same principle as the abatement of the parliamentary salary when a Member of Parliament is appointed to be a Minister and receives a ministerial salary. I do not know whether an amendment may be in order if it proposes to deal with the parliamentary salary rather than the salary payable to representatives of the Assembly for their attendance in Europe. The long title says:

"Make provision for the payment of salaries and pensions to or in respect of representatives …"

Representatives are paid salaries, if they hold a dual mandate, as Members of Parliament. That is dealt with in the long title.

We may accept my right hon. Friend's suggestion that we deal with the matter in Committee by an amendment. If that amendment applies the ministerial principle by the abatement of the parliamentary salary for those receiving the full European Assembly salary, I hope that such an amendment may be fully discussed in Committee. It would also come within the scope of the money resolution, in which the phraseology of the long title to the Bill is repeated.

I hope that clause 1(3) will be considerably amended, not on the basis that those holding the dual mandate should have two full salaries, but on the basis that, as they receive a full salary in respect of their representation in the Assembly, their parliamentary salary should be reasonably abated.

I have other points to make about the Bill. They may well be Committee points. However, I should like to lay down markers at this stage.

We shall need to give far more power to the Secretary of State to deal with matters by order. The Bill empowers the Secretary of State to deal by order with grants to representatives losing their seats, with pensions, and with the provision for payment of block transfer values into another pension scheme. Nobody wants to come back to discuss an amending Bill.

Interesting points were raised in the debate. Should the date of payment be laid down strictly in the Bill? Should not we see how it works out first? Perhaps a monthly payment is not convenient. Perhaps the timing of the payment after an election is inconvenient. The Secretary of State should take power to deal with those details by order.

We are dealing with a new matter in this Bill. We do not know how the scheme will work out. The Bill does not lay down an exact scheme for the payment of salaries or pensions. The Secretary of State should take more power to amend and put flesh on to the skeleton of the Bill if necessary. The Bill makes provision for the Secretary of State to deal with pensions by order. I should like to mention one Committee point on that. Under clause 3(3)(g) an order may

"be made so as to have effect from a date before the making of the order."

That is a power to make an order retrospective in relation to pension rights and it should be qualified by the condition that it should not be detrimental to the pensioner. We do not want any retrospective legislation which is detrimental to the pensioner. If it is to the benefit of the pensioner, all well and good. The whole of that clause should be considered very carefully in Committee to see that it is exactly what is required.

Having recommended that the Secretary of State should take to himself greater power to deal with the details of this scheme, I would hope that the order would be subject not merely to a negative resolution but would require an affirmative resolution of the House. It may be that when the new Select Committees are appointed we shall overcome the very difficult position which has faced the House for some years, of failing to find time for prayers against orders to be debated, with the result that some orders which are subject only to annulment in the House are never debated, however much Back Benchers may want them to be debated, whereas if an affirmative resolution is required, it is incumbent upon the Government to bring that before the House.

There will clearly continue to be a deep interest, at any rate in this House, in anything in connection with the duties of those holding a dual mandate and attending the European Assembly as well as this House. It is right that we should ensure by this Bill that any provisions, whether they be about pensions, payment of salary, grants on non-re-election or the capital of the pension fund, should come before the House on an affirmative resolution. Therefore, I hope that Clause 7(2) will be altered to that effect.

I go back to the first point regarding clause 1(3). It really is essential that this is debated before a full House and not on a Friday before a "thin" House. Therefore, I welcome the fact that this Bill will go before the full House in Committee and will not be sent upstairs. I hope that this point will be fully debated then.

I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said about the payment of the double salary or, at any rate, an element of the double salary. However, I want to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) if he has a moment before he leaves the Chamber, because everybody in the House knows the principled and courageous stand that he has taken on European matters. I was saddened to hear him say that he now believes that it is a mistake for the relationship between this country and the Community to be too tightly defined. I ask him to cast his mind back to the origins of the Community and the spirit that animated its foundation, and to accept that it was only by fairly tightly drawn rules that those who were to operate within the framework of the new Community could have the confidence that it would last and would not be subject to perpetual chipping away in the interests of vital national concerns in such a manner as to destroy its credibility. Indeed, the Community started to run downhill from the moment General de Gaulle imposed the national veto on its operation.

The Community would never have got off the ground if, during its initial stages, there had not been fairly tight rules, which were very strictly observed. I ask the hon. Member for Fife, Central to reflect on the sentiment that is now sweeping through the party that he represents—the sentiment of nation before Socialism. I am sure that he will readily admit that that is prevalent in his party at present.

If the formal ties which at present hold the Community together are loosened too much, a future Socialist Administration—I hope it is a long time before there is one—would find it virtually impossible to withstand the nationalistic demands from its own supporters, which would result in the total destruction of the Community. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Fife, Central for listening to me on that point. I wanted to express my grave concern on that aspect.

In my view—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree—the great mistake that we made was not to get in at the outset to play a part in formulating the rules.

I am with the hon. Gentleman 100 per cent. on that, but even on the assumption that we had been in at the beginning, I still believe that it would have been necessary to have pretty tight rules. I am saying not that those rules should be as absurdly restrictive as they are in certain instances but that the rules should be pretty tightly drawn and subject to very few exceptions.

That brings me on to one other point in the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, Central. He referred to the Members of this Assembly—if he prefers the word "Assembly", I prefer the word "Parliament"—representing vested interests. I believe—and this is very much a personal view—that the whole concept of a European elected Parliament is a mistaken one. I do not think that this is an effective way of securing control over the bureaucratic institutions of the Community. It would have been far better to recognise from the outset that what we are dealing with here are very large, Continental-sized vested interests. We should have accepted this and, rather than going for an elected Assembly on a constituency basis, we should have gone for something based much more on the European Economic and Social Committee which already exists within the Community and which accepts the existence of vested interests. For example, Sir Henry Plumb should be there not so much as the representative of the Cotswolds but as the representative of the farming profession. Mr. de Ferranti should be there as an industrialist rather than as a representative of the constituency that he does represent. This would have been a more satisfactory way of ensuring democratic control over the activities of the Community—a subject in which the Opposition have evidently lost all interest.

Docs my hon. Friend think it worth while to go on speaking to completely empty Opposition Benches? There is not even a Whip or a Minister on the Opposition Front Bench. They take such little interest in this legislation that there is not a soul on the Opposition Front Benches.

It is very discouraging. One is forced to one of two conclusions; either that the Labour Party has lost all interest in the Community, or that it is so riven by internal conflict that it is unable to keep two Members on the Benches who are on speaking terms with each other. However, what I have to say is primarily for the concern of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, and relates to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby raised at the beginning of his speech—the vexed question in clause 1(3) concerning the payment of the double salary.

I find myself in difficulties here. I do not feel justified, simply because I find this provision unacceptable, to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, which I consider to be essential and urgent if the European Parliament is to get off to a proper start. I would not feel justified if, in consequence of my vote, this Bill should fail to get a Second Reading. I should feel that I had done a very bad day's work. But I must record the fact that I am intensely unhappy about the principle involved here.

I fully accept, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said, that any additional salary of those who hold the dual mandate should be abated. I would not quarrel with a very severe abatement of that second salary, even, if necessary, to below the point at which hon. Members who become junior Ministers have their Member's salary abated. But I absolutely insist on the acceptance of the principle that members who are elected to the European Parliament and who are also Members of this House have the right, in principle, to a salary in recognition of their membership of the European Parliament in addition to that for their membership of this House.

I regard that principle as being of such importance that, unless my hon. and learned Friend can give me some assurance that the Government are at any rate prepared to give very serious consideration to this and have taken in the deep anxiety felt by a great many of my hon. Friends, I shall find it very difficult indeed to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.

I know that the proper answer is that I should raise this matter or vote on an amendment in Committee. But when shall we have the Committee stage? I understand that it is to be taken on the Floor of the House, but if it is to be taken on a Friday, as is this Second Reading, the Government must bear in mind that many of us find it virtually impossible to be present on a Friday. One is faced with the possibility of not being able to register one's intense disapproval of this arrangement by voting, as one should vote, on an amendment.

Therefore, unless I receive an assurance from my hon. and learned Friend that these matters are being taken very seriously indeed by the Government, I shall find it extremely difficult to vote for the Second Reading.

I agree with the last comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). Particularly if one represents a Scottish constituency, or, like my hon. Friend, a Welsh constituency, it is almost impossible to be in this place on a Friday without totally ruining any plans that one might have for the weekend—especially if a strike is taking place which affects air travel, as has occurred today.

On behalf of my hon. Friends, perhaps I may say how extremely glad we are to see that the Labour Party has at last deigned to have a representative in the Chamber, in the person of the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth). For the past quarter of an hour or so we have had the miserable privilege of being here with absolutely no one on the Opposition Benches, and I very much hope that that state of affairs will not recur.

There was one point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West on which I did not agree with him—if I understood him aright. He said that he thought that people ought to represent groups and not individuals and constituencies. That would be an extremely dangerous principle. It is absolutely right that Sir Henry Plumb should be responsible to those voters who elected him, in an exactly parallel way to the way in which we in this House are responsible to those in our constituencies, whether or not they voted for us, and not to corporate interests. I distrust corporatism in any form and I certainly would not want to see it transferred to the European Parliament.

I hope that I made it clear that within the context of the present Parliament, as elected, the members must represent their electors on a constituency basis. All that I was saying was that I should have preferred a different kind of democratic check altogether, which would not have been an elected Parliament but, frankly, a Chamber of interests. But that would have been something totally different. Within the concept of what we now have, clearly, the members must represent their constituencies.

I take the distinction that my hon. Friend is drawing. I can only say that I still disagree with him totally. I think that Members of Parliament should be responsible to the voters and that it should always be like that, whether it be in this House or in the European Parliament. However, that is just a disagreement of view, although a very strong one.

I want to make three brief points. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), in a very interesting and thoughtful speech, said that he did not agree with the dual mandate and that, therefore, he agreed that hon. Members who were elected to both Parliaments should not be paid twice. As it happens, I also think that the dual mandate is an impossibility. It is a mental and physical impossibility. I recommended against it in our party committees, and I think that those of our hon. Friends who have these two jobs will find it absolutely impossible to do them.

I give one example. When I was last visiting the European Parliament, it happened to be on a Tuesday. There was a session the next day. One of my hon. Friends representing a Scottish constituency was there. I said "What about Scottish Question Time in the Commons tomorrow? Will you be back for that?" He said "No, I am afraid not." Scottish Question Time comes only once a month. Arguably, it is one of the most important hours, or 55 minutes, for Scottish Members. But my hon. Friend was totally unable to come to that Question Time. That was a small example of the impossibility, but it was an exact example. It cannot be done.

But—and this is the point—although I think that the dual mandate is impossible, the voters did not think so. We must take our instructions in these matters from the voters. If they thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) could represent Kensington in this House and a much larger part of London in the European Parliament, that was their decision. They are the taxpayers and the voters. Therefore, we should abide by their wishes.

It is quite wrong that, in a sense—although I appreciate that the Government were not putting it in this sense—the Government are saying "We disagree with the voters' decision to elect people to both Parliaments, and we shall counteract that decision by paying them only once." Therefore, although I disagree with the dual mandate, I believe that we must bow to the full implications of voters' wishes in this matter.

My second point is to state a simple principle, which ought to be stated clearly. If a man or woman does two jobs, that man or woman should be paid for two jobs. The voters have elected them to do two jobs. It is not for us to say otherwise. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) made clear, we already accept this principle. We have Ministers of whom sometimes we say "We never see them at all in this place except when they come to the Dispatch Box" —

Too often.

yet they get paid for being Members of Parliament.

Perhaps when the hon. Member for Thornaby was sitting on the Government Benches he would not have made the same interjection.

Ministers do two jobs and are paid for two jobs. It is quite wrong that a person who does two jobs should be paid for only one of them. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will make clear that the Government are prepared to think again about this matter in Committee.

My third and final point is that I believe that it is valuable for Members of this House to have outside jobs. Representing people in both Parliaments is almost impossible to do, but no doubt the European Parliament will be an interesting experience to bring back to this place. But, more significantly, it is valuable for the House of Commons that individual Members have jobs in the City, or as lawyers, trade union officials, or whatever they be.

As it happens, for the last five years I have not done this. Having taken a decision to spend all my time in opposition as a full-time Member, I am now conscious of being out of touch with the outside world in certain areas. The business experience that I had accumulated in my previous career has now drifted away.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said, if I took him aright, that he was in his professional office earlier this morning. He is a lawyer. I well remember that when we were dealing with the miserable devolution Bill, when we were in opposition and were drafting amendments, we drew very largely and frequently upon the professional ability of my right hon. Friend. He would sit down on a Monday afternoon, with his lawyer's eye, and go through the Bill. He would say—none of us had seen the point—"Here is a point. Here is how one should draft an amendment on this point." The House and the country, as it has now turned out from the decision the night before last, have benefited from that specific legal professionalism, which enabled my right hon. Friend to go through a Bill with a lawyer's eye and to see things and say things which I, with merely a Scottish partisan eye, was not able to see. That is the value of hon. Members with up-to-date outside experience to contribute to our debates.

I have another example that might appeal to you, Mr. Speaker. I was recently reading a life of Lloyd George. In that biography it was said that Winston Churchill tried to bring Lloyd George back into the Government in 1940 because he believed that, although he was a fairly elderly statesman and the Government would get only 50 per cent. of his time, that 50 per cent. would be such pure radium that it would be worth 100 per cent. of anybody's else's. That principle should be applied here.

If some hon. Members elect not to spend all their time here, nevertheless the time that they do spend is so valuable to the House that we must never cut it out. We must not establish the principle in the Bill that if an hon. Member has another job, whatever it may be, he will not be paid for this place or alternatively for that other job.

I am in favour of the general principle that the Government put forward, but, they are trying to establish the principle of first- and second-class hon. Members, perhaps without intending to. We are all equal. We have all been elected equally. I hope that the Government will reconsider their attitude and ensure that every hon. Member is paid on an equal basis.

My extreme loyalty to a Government who have acted so speedily and so consistently on their election pledges precludes me from voting against the Bill on Second Reading. However, I have extreme doubts about clause 1(3). Those doubts are shared by many hon. Members who have spoken today and others who have been unable to attend the debate.

What disturbs me is its inherent denial of a principle that is held not only by Conservatives throughout the country but by almost any reasonable person in everyday life. People should be paid according to the work that they do. If one works harder or longer hours, one should be remunerated accordingly. That is a fundamental principle. It should make the Government doubt that their proposal alien to that principle is acceptable to the nation as a whole.

We fought the election on the basis that the nation would be regenerated if people had incentive to work harder and produce more. If I were an elected European member with the good will of the majority of my voting constituents and was also a Member of the British Parliament, I would not feel so enthusiastic about the European job if I were not to earn a penny more doing it. Common sense makes that so. We must remunerate our representatives in Europe so that they have the incentive to perform to the best of their ability, as expected by their electorate. That is patently obvious. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) spelt out that principle with great force. It is puzzling that the Government should believe that the will of the country would support the clause as laid, and I therefore presume that there must be a good reason why that principle is departed from.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) asked the Home Secretary for the reason. He was told that, as a number of other countries in Europe took a similar approach, it was in order for us to follow. It is not as simple as that. Other countries have different levels of payment, the burden of work on their Members varies, and totally different circumstances pertain. Without giving more details, the Government cannot argue that because others do it we must. I associate myself with my colleagues who have said that that conclusion is without foundation.

If it is being said that the European expenses are sufficient to make up the shortfall, provide the incentive, and cover the principle that people who work more should be paid more, that approach is false, and dangerous. Too many people already think that as Members of Parliament we are highly paid not because of our salaries but because of our allowances. But a company executive has a secretary paid for by the company. We cannot be expected to pay our secretaries out of our salaries any more than can a company executive. If a company sends an employee away to do a job, the company pays the overnight expenses and they do not come out of the employee's salary. Why should we have to do so differently? There is a complete misunderstanding that allowances are benefits that accrue to our salaries.

If expenses are used as an argument against granting European members an additional increment when they are Members at Westminster, that gives currency to a belief that is totally wrong.

If the objection is that there is enough to do in Westminster and an hon. Member should not also sit in Europe, that is also fallacious. The electorate decides whether the European member is able to do both jobs and we should not challenge that decision. If the hon. Member has fallen below the standard of his representative duty required by his electors, the challenge will come at the next election.

As I am a practising barrister-at-law, people sometimes suggest that I am a half-time Member. I reply that I am a double-time Member. Some people may work an eight-hour day. I work a 12, 14 and sometimes 16-hour day. Hon. Members with outside jobs can make a significant contribution to this place. I give the example of value added tax. I wonder how many hon. Members know what it is to fill in a VAT form four times a year. Only those who have to do that understand what a hideous burden it must be for the self-employed and small business men. Too few hon. Members have to fill in VAT forms and there are many other examples of how those with outside interests can help the work of the House.

More germane to the question is the fact that members of the European Parliament who also have their feet in this place will be able to co-ordinate efforts for the general benefit of the United Kingdom and the co-operation that must be built up between the two Parliaments if Britain is to improve its standing in the world.

No doubt other reasons could be advanced for the payment of only one salary, but I hope that none is as lowly in justification as the two that I have mentioned. I hope that the Minister of State, for whom we all have a great deal of respect, will be able to give us a more positive explanation of why it is necessary to exempt ourselves from the principle that people should be paid for the work they do.

I would not support the proposition that the full European salary should be added to the full salary paid to hon. Members. There must be some abatement and the question is whether the European salary or the domestic salary should be abated. It was claimed earlier that the European salary would have to be abated because the Bill did not allow for abatement of the domestic salary. I do not believe that that can be right and I shall be grateful for guidance on that point from the Minister of State.

I should be surprised if my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), with his experience and wisdom in such matters, had not noted that the long title of the Bill refers to making

"provision for the payment of salaries and pensions to or in respect of Representatives to the Assembly of the European Communities."

That suggests that we are dealing with the payment of salaries and pensions decided by the House and an amendment to abate the pension and-or the salary that this House pays would be in order within the terms of the Long Title.

And the Financial Resolution.

My right hon. and learned Friend displays his usual perspicacity in these matters. I hope that, having heard the strength of opinion in the Conservative Party and, I suspect, the House as a whole, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will undertake to reconsider clause 1(3) and look kindly upon the sort of amendment that most of my hon. Friends and I favour for the justice and incentive that should properly come out of such legislation.

Whatever else comes out of the debate, it has made clear the incredible courage of those who have taken on the dual mandate. They are walking into an unknown field, because although, like me, they may have experience of previous Assemblies. I think that they do not realise the impetus that the new Assembly will have.

Much of the work that we do in the House, on regional policy, environmental problems and so on, will be duplicated in Europe. The scope of many European Assembly committees will be enlarged, so that the work of the 410 members of the Assembly will be increased.

In January 1973 the parameters of the Assembly were defined fairly clearly. There were a set number of committees and a small number of members on each committee. The United Kingdom delegation had the right to a certain number of chairmen and vice-chairmen. All that was agreed by the political groups.

Everyone has skirted round the added responsibilities that some of the dual-mandated Members may have to pick up in Europe. They may become the chairmen of committees, or have responsibilities within the Conservative group at Strasbourg. That will make it increasingly difficult for the double mandate to work.

I have always been a little alarmed by the ease with which people take up overlapping jobs. I was guilty of it when I thought that I could comfortably manage work on the original United Kingdom deputation to the Assembly and my constituency and House of Commons work. I wanted to stay on a Commons Select Committee and take part in work in Europe and in London.

In the end, it was not possible. I was elected as chairman of a responsible European committee which entailed giving up time at weekends. One could not refuse to work on a Saturday or Sunday when one had accepted a position in Europe. That is where the great difficulty will come for members of the new Assembly.

What would happen if the House were prepared to give a double salary that would virtually exclude a dual-mandated Member from accepting responsibility in Europe—because of the added work load—and the Member went ahead and accepted extra responsibility? How would that line up with the existing United Kingdom members of the Assembly who receive only one salary?

We have got on to a rather odd path. When I was a member of the Assembly, the intention was that decisions affecting the Assembly would be made by its members. We made a decision about the date of the first direct elections—though the date was a year late—and decisions on future voting methods will be made by the Assembly.

We are discussing pay for only the next five years. Pay, conditions and the sort of elections that will take place in 1984 will, according to the Treaty of Rome, be made by the European Assembly.

What the hon. Gentleman said about the voting system is correct, but I can find nothing in the Treaty of Rome that says that from the second election onwards the question of pay for members should be decided by the Assembly.

That is a good point. All is not written in the Treaty, and its clauses are very flexible. We were discussing recently the provision of the Treaty that excluded snipping and aviation from the decisions of the Community. Those topics are now being brought within the Community's responsibilities and I believe that if the Assembly decides the type of elections to be held it will also decide the working conditions in Strasbourg and the pay and conditions of support within the European Parliament. It would be wrong for a double-mandated Member to receive double pay. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that there has to be an abatement and that matter could be considered by the Government.

We cannot even decide our pay, and yet we are hoping to decide today on the pay of another complete Assembly. I hope that the double mandate is a temporary measure. Whether one is a barrister-at-law who becomes an Attorney-General or is in another category, I believe that the double mandate has to go by the board—and that applies to Europe as well. We should not forget that many of the newly elected European parliamentarians of the Conservative Party are naïve in political strategy and will be facing politicians of the highest calibre in the European Assembly. We are aware that the Socialist group in Europe is the strongest and it will be trying to pool its power, and during these difficult times we should be grateful to have the five double-mandated Members. I believe that the decisions of the future—certainly by 1984—must be taken within the European Assembly.

Much of the debate has concentrated on the more controversial aspects of the Bill. In particular, it has concentrated on the question of the dual mandate. However, I hope that that question will not take our eye off the ball and prevent us from recognising that there has been a wide but not universal agreement about the central aim of the Bill.

We should not forget that the central aim of the Bill is to ensure that those elected to the European Assembly receive a salary. Without the Bill that would not happen. The payment of members of the European Assembly is an inexorable consequence of our basic commitment to membership of the European Community, as reflected in the referendum vote and our subsequent conduct. Therefore, it is right and proper for the House to express its approval of the principle of payment of those members.

Is that not an over simplification of the position? The House is waiting to hear—accepting the general aim of the Bill to be a good one and apart from the specific matter of the dual mandate remuneration which can be dealt with in Committee—a reply to the point raised by Labour Members in regard to the validity in law of the act of the Council of Ministers in 1976. There is no express reference to those matters in the EEC Treaty. We should like to know whether the Council of Ministers was acting intra vires in regard to the treaties when it passed the measure whereby the remuneration of the Parliament was left to the member States rather than to the European Parliament. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will address himself to that point. We do not have the advantage of a Law Officer on the Front Bench, but my hon. and learned Friend, who is such an ornament of the legal profession, is well qualified to deal with the matter.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) for his description. Much as I shall try to fulfil that ornamental role, I shall not seek to usurp that of the Law Officers. However, I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend's intervention. I was about to say that, although the almost universal support for the principle of the Bill is welcome, there should also be recognition of the points made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) and my right hon. and learned Friend.

The advice that we have received—and that which must have been received by the other member Governments who reached that agreement—is that the member countries are entitled to deal with the remuneration. But if there is any doubt about the matter it cannot be, nor should it be, resolved in the House in this way. It is clear that there can be no objection from the point of view of our domestic law to the enactment by this sovereign legislature, if we so desire, of legislation which secures payment of remuneration for those elected to the European Assembly or, indeed, of anyone else. The matter rests there. It is a satisfactory basis to proceed to legislate upon what, on any view, is in broad conformity with our basic commitment to the European Community.

A number of detailed points were raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). I should like to deal with the point he made about the taxation of European Assembly members' salaries. Those salaries will be subject to United Kingdom rates of taxation. Where there are at least 30 qualifying days of absence from the United Kingdom during the tax year, 25 per cent. of the earnings attributable to duties performed abroad will be tax free. That conforms with the ordinary tax laws.

The right hon. Member for Leeds, South also referred to social security contributions. Those contributions will be paid at the standard rate.

Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that, because of the operation of this sensible tax concession, those who hold a dual mandate will be correspondingly worse off than their colleagues in the European Parliament who are there in right of that election alone? In other words, as they have no earnings they will be unable to obtain any tax relief.

I do not believe that that follows. However, no useful purpose will be served by splitting that particular hair.

I should like to press my hon. and learned Friend further on the point. Those Members will be unable to claim any tax relief on their parliamentary salary in this place because of their absence overseas performing other duties in another Assembly.

What my hon. Friend is saying is that it follows that someone cannot be exempt from tax in respect of tax that, on any view, he is not obliged to pay.

The right hon. Member for Leeds, South referred to allowances and raised a number of important points about travel warrants, a whole range of postal expenses and other such matters. Those allowances will be matters which the European Assembly will be entitled to decide upon. The allowances for European Assembly members will be considered by the Assembly, and the interests of its members will be identical in that respect.

A point of some importance relates to the expenses incurred before the Assembly gets going properly. This was raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South. I am sure that these expenses would be regarded as properly and necessarily incurred as a result of membership of the Assembly. I see no reason why the Assembly, in considering the nature and extent of the allowances it wishes to pay its members, should not take into account such expenses, whether by way of special provision or merely on the basis of the calculation of the ordinary provision that it makes.

In all these respects, our European Assembly members will be in the same position and have the same interests as other European Assembly members, and the Assembly itself will have full power to take the action necessary to ensure that the expenses properly incurred in the work of the Assembly are met, and that the individuals concerned are not, as they should not be, out of pocket in any way.

The right hon. Member for Leeds, South also pointed out that the salaries will not be payable until 17 July, with the date of first payment later than that. Unlike this Parliament, the Assembly's arrangement is such that it is specifically agreed that the term of office of the new members starts on 17 July and not on the date of election. It would therefore be difficult to agree to pay them before they were quasi-statutory members, as it were.

The date for payment of the first cheque is, under the Bill, 31 July, because the salary is paid monthly in arrears. But if it is thought that there may be special difficulty on this point, it can be considered in Committee.

The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of Members of the House of Lords and their entitlement to the allowance they have at the moment for their attendance in another place. That aspect concerns some hon. Members opposite. It would be wholly wrong, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, to regard the allowance as in any way a salary. The rules of the House of Lords are explicit and strict. The attendance allowance which its Members receive was defined by the Review Body on Top Salaries in 1977 as intended to cover overnight subsistence necessarily incurred by peers who have their main homes outside London, day subsistence and incidental travel.

Paragraph 7 of the Review Body's report said:

"It is not in any sense a remuneration (whether by salary or fee) for the work done by Members of the House of Lords."

Therefore, it is right to say that, if Members of the House of Lords who are also members of the Assembly are allowed to retain that payment, it is no more than analogous with the arrangement for Members of the House of Commons who are also members of the Assembly.

The right hon. Gentleman made the more general point that there should be contact between the Assembly and Members of this Parliament. I am sure that the need for us to work together rather than against each other will be at the forefront of the minds of my right hon. and hon. Friends and of members of the Assembly, but the mechanism by which it can be done will have to be, and is being, carefully considered. It is not something that we can directly deal with in the Bill, although it is right and proper that it should be referred to on Second Reading.

I can bring this point up in Committee, but, since I know that certain people have problems in this respect, I raise it now even if we have to pursue it further afterwards. Some of the new members of the Assembly were in the public service but since election cannot work, whether by law or usage, I do not know. They may well have been paid during the election campaign, but once they were elected their pay finished. I am not asking the hon. and learned Gentleman for a definitive answer now. He said that those elected do not become full Members of the Assembly until 17 July, but some authorities in this country are treating them as if they were already members of the European Parliament by saying that they could not work from the day following the election. In other words, such people are losing about six weeks' pay when they could easily have been working still.

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. This debate will have provided a valuable service if public authorities, and others, pay attention to what he has said and to my explanation—that payment starts on 17 July because that is the day on which full membership of the Assembly starts. The employers of those who have been elected should take that point into account.

May I add a supplementary note? A person does not become a member of the European Parliament until the process of verification is gone through, and that process will not come until 17 July. It is for that reason that a person elected on 7 June will not be a Member until 17 July, and therefore I think that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South must be correct in saying that such a person cannot be shut out from any emoluments drawn from any other source by reason of a membership which will not have become effective.

Will the Minister of State speak to the Department of Education and Science? Local authorities are not the swiftest movers in these respects, and perhaps a little note from the Department could bring this point to their attention quicker than their compulsory weekend reading of Friday's Hansard would do.

I should be very happy to draw the attention of the Department of Education and Science to the point that they would otherwise find in Hansard if it were published and if they were able to read it.

The main point of controversy in the debate concerns the treatment of Members of Parliament who are also members of the European Assembly. The Government recognise and accept not only the depth but the width of feeling among those on this side of the House who have taken a different view from that reflected in the Bill. I do not think that anyone who has been present during the debate or who has seen the large number of hon. Members who are now present could have any doubt about the strength of feeling on this side of the House on the issue. I have heard and noted carefully the reasons put forward for those arguments by a most representative and distinguished collection of my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends—my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr. Onslow), for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn), for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), and, on the other side of the House, the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).

As my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate, those who wish to ask the House to take a different view will have that opportunity in Committee. It might assist the House if I say that the answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West, and subsequently taken up by some of my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends, relating to the possibility of discussion in Committee, on the advice I have received, seems to be that amendments to deal with the point, in the sense in which my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends wish, would be in accordance with the long title and in accordance with the money resolution. In saying that, I am acutely conscious that I cannot, and must not, in any sense, usurp, or seek to usurp, the functions of the Chair. I can only give a view on that matter. I am much fortified by the knowledge that my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and, I think, also my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East share that view. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West, namely, that it would be wrong and inconvenient for a matter of this kind to be decided on a Friday, is one that I shall certainly communicate to my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House, although one sees quite a large number of my right hon. and hon. Friends here today.

There is an important point. It would be in order in Committee to move an amendment to delete the whole of subsection (3). But it is doubtful, in my view, whether it would be in order for a Back Bencher to do so because increased public expenditure would be involved. Similarly, an amendment moved by a Back Bencher on subsection (3) to give a limited salary or a full salary would involve public expenditure. It also seems doubtful whether that would be in order.

My hon. Friend is well versed in these matters. I can only give the benefit of the advice I receive. It would not be the intention of the Government to make debate impossible on matters whatever view one forms of them. That is as far as I can take the matter, granted that the decision in relation to questions of order is not one for the Government to make.

My hon. and learned Friend is making the concession and, I think, agreeing that the whole question of subsection (3) can be raised properly within the terms of the long title. Will he address his mind to the matter I raised, and which was also raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), as to whether the abatement of salary in the domestic Parliament, or from the domestic Parliament's point of view, is within the terms of the long title, as he understands it?

I do not think it is necessary for me to express a view on that point. I say in parenthesis that I do not regard it as a concession to say that the House is entitled to debate a matter. It seems to me that the House is most certainly so entitled. It would be wrong for any Government to seek to negate the rights of the House, but I do not believe that it is necessary to answer the specific point. If I understand what my right hon. and hon. Friends are saying, they want a particular consequence, namely, that those who are elected to the European Assembly should have a partial salary. Whether that is done by the abatement of the one salary or the other salary I would have thought is a matter not central to the arguments that have been raised.

My hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that this is an important point so far as further consideration in Committee is concerned. If it should appear, because of the rules of the House, that Back-Bench Members will not be able to do what we are known to wish to do—to open up this question in a way that might involve more public expenditure—the Government should at least try to evolve some formula whereby a motion goes down which we could debate, even if it was in the name of the Government rather than that of a Back Bencher, without any necessary commitment by the Government.

It would not be right or proper for me, at this stage, without consultation, to seek to give any specific undertaking of that kind. I have said, and stand by the statement, that it is not the wish of the Government that debate on these matters should be stultified by procedural forms. Because it is likely, to put it mildly, that these matters will receive further consideration, I do not believe it is necessary that I should go into the full argument that has led the Government to take the view expressed in the Bill at this stage. But it is only right that I should at least seek to allay some anxieties that have been expressed on the Government's thinking in coming forward with the proposals.

It was originally raised as a query by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking that the view taken in the Bill is in some sense based on an assessment and a consideration that those attending the European Assembly are likely to have generous, perhaps over-generous, allowances and that this matter should be reflected in the provision in this Bill. I welcome the opportunity to make clear, as I believe my right hon. Friend made clear, although no harm is done in making it clear again, that this is no part of the Government's thinking. Our view is that expenses are, and should be, the amounts paid to enable people to do the job, whether that job is here or in the European Assembly.

A second anxiety which I welcome the opportunity of allaying relates to the feeling expressed by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends that the view the Government have taken indicates that we may give credence or support to the belief that Members of Parliament should not have other occupations and other interests. All I can say is that, if I were to give any credence to that view, I would be particularly open to the accusation of the most monstrous form of hypocrisy. That is not an accusation to which I wish to lay myself open.

I can assure the House that the mere fact that I have spent a few weeks on this side of the House in this position has not altered my lifelong belief that there is tremendous benefit to be gained, not by the individual but by the community, in having a legislature where people can bring to bear their current experience of the outside world and not simply some dim and distant recollection of what it was like to work for a newspaper or to teach in a technical college 20 years ago. I believe that I am well qualified to give that assurance to my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Government's thinking involved a desire to reach, broadly speaking, the same conclusion as that of our European partners.

I shall not go again into the question of the various positions of the different countries, since my right hon. Friend spelt that out in detail. In the countries that are broadly comparable to ours a single salary is to be paid.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking suggested that it would be wrong if there were a slavish adherence to what our partners are doing. I accept that that would be wrong. But there is a difference between a slavish adherence for its own sake and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) said, a desire for an interim agreement. It is reasonable that one should have substantial regard to the general practice which is emerging in Europe.

The provisions in the 1976 Act and the Treaty ensure that the European Assembly will draw up proposals for a common electoral system. Not only is it likely that that will be done; there is no reason why provision should not be made for a common salary. When that is done the Council and the national Parliaments will have the last word.

When the European Assembly reaches a view about permanent arrangements the Council and, ultimately, this House will decide about giving effect to those arrangements.

Meanwhile, the Government have taken a view. Important as the issue is, and strong as are the feelings of some of my hon. Friends, I ask the House to agree that our overriding duty this afternoon is to give a Second Reading to a Bill that will ensure that those citizens who have decided that it is vital that they should play their part in the European Assembly receive the remuneration that will enable them to do so.

I apologise to the Minister of State. I did not realise that he was winding up so early. Shall we be able to amend the Bill?

I said that although I could not pre-empt a decision, my advice was that it would be in order to amend.

Why is reference made in the money resolution to social security payments for Northern Ireland when there is no mention of social security for the rest of the United Kingdom?

I am not able to give an answer immediately, but I shall look into the matter.