THE ,SPECTATOR'Sj NOTEBOOK

There were mutterings in Fleet Street and Westminster on Tuesday evening, and in the papers on Wednesday morning, about the wisdom of the Prime Minister in accepting the huge £37,000 German prize for his ' statesmanship ' in the cause of European unity. There was almost a consensus • that at the very least he should have announced 'immediately, along with his acceptance of the price, that he would give it to this or that•charity. It is very difficult to turn away £37,000 — Mr Heath could buy himself a very nice boat for that — and my own first reaction was that he should pocket the German cash.

Upon reflection, I am not so sure. Indeed, I wonder whether he should have accepted the prize at all. It would have been a very different matter had the Prime Minister retired from active political life; or even had the ' statesmanship ' involved in his "outstanding services to the entry of Britain to the European community, to European unification and to the standing of Europe in the world" been long-since crowned with success. It seems peculiar, to say the least, for a German foundation to give the Prime Minister £37,000 for something he has not yet achieved, and may indeed well not achieve — and for something which, in addition, grievously divides the nation.

Both in the making of the award, and in its acceptance, there is a slightly nasty taste, a whiff of impropriety. To make the point more concrete: suppose, for the sake of argument, that over the fisheries question, say, or some subsequent point of legislation, Mr Heath's Cabinet decides, or is forced, to abandon the policy of British entry, what, then, of the £37,000?

Prime Ministers must not only be uncorrupt: they must be seen to be uncorrupt. Accepting the prize, if then belatedly shuffling the cash off to some charity, is at best a clumsy piece of pseudo-propriety. It would have been better had the Prime Minister politely but firmly have declined, at this time, the German cash.

Parliamentary cash

Few, however, will cavill at the Prime Minister's pay •increase, and the other increases for Cabinet ministers, junior ministers and members of parliament suggested by Lord Boyle's committee. Of course everyone would have advised slightly differently. Personally, I would have given the Leader of the Opposition the same salary as Cabinet Ministers — leaders of the opposition have become a large and necessary part of our constitutional machinery. And I would have brought the Lord Chancellor into line with Cabinet Ministers: there is no longer a good reason why the Lord Chancellor should be favourably treated.

Royal monies

The Queen's cash is a different matter. I fail to understand the thinking of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's committee here. That the Queen, as Head of State, performs her duties ably and conscientiously is not doubted; and if the Head of State is to be hereditary, which is to say royal (and there is much to be said for the arrangement, quite apart from its obvious popularity), then it is going to be an expensive business. There is no point in a cut-price Queen. But surely it would have been better, more seemly, to have separated the costs of the Queen as Head of State, and for these to have been carried directly by the Treasury, from other payments made to her in lieu of income received from the royal estates. Alternatively, she could have received all the income from the Crown estates, but have paid tax on that income. As it is, no one really knows what the true costs of the Queen as Head of State are, nor what her personal income and private wealth amount to. Were she taxed, there would be no need for any of us to know these personal and private details. Taxpayers are, however, entitled to know how their money is spent.

But much more questionable than the Queen's Civil List are the state pensions dished out to the other royals. The amounts are peculiar, and large — in most cases sums excessively greater than salaries paid to the Prime Minister, or to heads of nationalised industries, are proposed. A great deal of the public activity of these royals is opening things and eating things. Much publicity and commer cial value is attached to functions where royalty is present. I do not see why the organisers of such functions should not pay the royal dukes and duchesses, princes and princesses, earls and so forth appropriate fees. The Queen Mother clearly has earned a generous pension and a comfortable retirement free of financial worry. But do the others need to be so comfortably feather-bedded? I think not. Indeed I am at a loss to justify their pensions at all.

CMQ 50 etc., etc., etc.,

Following our report last week of the errors, confusions and omissions in the Conservative Party's Common Market briefing 'service I am happy to see that the Research Department has now revived the defunct EEC Advisory Service and issued yet another amendment to CMQ 50 (on seamen) for private oirculation. It is nice to see, too, that the research boys have put the blame where it belongs — on government departments who simply did not know the answer to a question. For general interest, the full (and presumablY final) brief now reads:

FURTHER AMENDED CMQ No. 50 SEAMEN Will mobility of labour within the EEC mean that European officers and seamen could man British ships registered in the United Kingdom?

CORRIGENDUM We apologise for the fact that the informa tion given in paragraph 1 of the Amended CMQ No. 50 was still not correct. The regrettable confusion was due to the multiplicity of Government Departments each responsible for only their own aspect of the ways in which seamen may be affected under the Treaty of Rome. We hope that the following is at last comprehensive and correct: "European and other alien seamen are not

barred from manning UK ships; however, they can at present only enter this country to join ships if they are under contract to a specific vessel. If Britain joins the EEC it is our un derstanding that the free movement of labour provisions of the Treaty will apply equally to seamen. This would mean that EEC seamen would be free to enter the UK to look for ships without first having contracts, in accordance with the rights of nationals of member states to enter other member states to seek employment or to take employment previously arranged.

' They would still, however, be subject to those safeguards which are provided for under Community rules and which apply to all EEC nationals, seeking work in another member state, notably Directive 64/221/EEC which provides that member states may refuse the right to enter or remain on their territory to those persons who are unacceptable on the grounds of public policy (' ordre public '), public security, or public health."

The question of officers is rather more complicated. At present three categories of officer (Master, Chief Officer, and Chief Engineer) must hold British certificates of competency if they are to man United Kingdom registered vessels. By Section Five of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, of 1919 and Section One(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1967, aliens are disbarred from manning British ships. Although this will be repealed as soon as the Merchant Shipping Act of 1970 comes into effect, there will still remain the problem of whether examination regulations enabling certificates to be issued to officers shall be rewritten to include aliens.

Whatever change is made, however, it would not follow that European certificates of competency alone would be accepted in this country after entry. The Commission has appeared happy to leave this matter in the hands of the individual member states.

Conservative Research Department.

1st December 1971.