THE SPECTATOR'S] NOTEBOOK

It is being whispered around that when Lord Chelmer delivers his report on the Tory party organisation to the Prime Minister he will recommend the removal of the more grotesque aspects of the selection of candidates, whereby their wives are vetted by local selection committees. It is a delicate matter in more ways than one. Local constituency parties are very jealous of their rights, and resent any attempt by Central Office or the party leadership to tell them how to conduct themselves. Nevertheless, the inspection of candidates' wives by selection committees often leaves the impression that a cross between a Miss World competition and a cattle show has taken place. Wives, of course, can be extremely important to candidates (and indeed to members and ministers). Christopher Chataway landed the plush seat of Chichester after a particularly sparkling performance by his wife, Anna, who not only delivered a model speech but performed a pirouette into the bargain. Toby Jessel won his selection at Twickenham after an impressive showing by his wife, Philippa Brigid, who is a very rare bird, being both attractive and a sociologist.

Noble Lords

I convey my congratulations to Sir Max Aitken and Lord Goodman for their part in Sir Alec's Rhodesian settlement. Both men must surely figure in the New Year Honours list. Lord Goodman, being already a life peer, may rate a CH. Alternatively, he could be promoted into a hereditary peerage — Ted Heath is known to favour such a restoration, and the bachelor Lord Goodman could provide a harmless precedent. Max Aitken might well be ennobled. He renounced the Beaverbrook barony when his father died, saying there would be only one Lord Beaverbrook. He, however, has now earned a seat in the Lords, which is more than can be said for the other eldest sons of the original press lords: why not Lord Aitken, or, come to that, Lord Cowes?

CMQ 50, etc., etc

Between them, the Conservative Central Office and the Conservative Research Department a few months ago set up an ' Advisory Service on Common Market Questions The object was to supply answers to tricky questions asked of MPs and the like. A series of questions, with suggested replies, were issued to all MPs. CMQ 50 (for Common Market Question 50), issued on September 8, is as follows: Will mobility of labour with the EEC mean that European seamen could man our ships?

Suggested reply Seamen are at present not included in the list of professions eligible under the Treaty clauses dealing with mobility of labour, and there are no signs that the Community is about to deal with this matter. Should there be any discussion in the future on the harmonisation of laws, then Britain as a member state would obviously have a say in such decisions as are taken.

This answer was discovered, however, by an anti-Common Market MP to be false. On September 22 the Advisory Service issued an amended CMQ50.

Even the new question was different: Will mobility of labour with the EEC mean that European officers and seamen could man our ships?

Suggested reply European seamen can at present join British foreign ports, just as British seamen can ships either in the United Kingdom or in join foreign ships, and therefore they will remain unaffected by Britain's entry.

Less than a week after this was issued a letter arrived on the desk of Robert Milne, a Central Office official dealing with the Advisory Service. As soon as he read it alarm bells started ringing. It came from Enoch Powell: I was most interested in the amended answer CMQ no 50 on seamen which states that "Europeans can at present join British ships in the United Kingdom." Could you let me know what is the meaning of " European " in this context? Does this mean seamen who are nationals of one of the EEC countries or does it mean any seaman who is not a British subject or alternatively who is not a subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies? Further, does this mean that seamen can enter the UK in order to join ships and must they, for that purpose, show evidence of an existing contrac which requires them to join a particular ship in a particular UK port?

As regards the next part of the sentence does this mean that British seamen can join foreign ship in the UK or that they are permitted to join them anywhere else in the world?

Not only did this letter start the alarm bells. The questions he was asking were difficult and could well contain hidden traps. Robert Milne passed the letter (and the buck) to Roger Martin, a new boy in the Research Department, who first consulted Geoffrey Rippon's department in the Foreign Office, then the two ministries most involved with the questions of seamen and immigration, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Home Office. On September 29 Roger Martin wrote to Enoch Powell:

In order to clarify the situation, I have been in touch with both the DTI and the Home Office and the following appears to be true.

1. ' European ' in this context means any seaman who is not a British subject.

2. Aliens or Commonwealth citizens who are non-resident in the United Kingdom can enter this country in order to join ships, but they must show evidence of an existing contract which requires them to join a particular ship in the UK. In some cases immigration officials will check with the port to make sure that tho ship mentioned has in fact berthed.

3. !British seamen can join foreign ships in the UK or anywhere else in the world.

On October 20 (the day before the Great Debate in the Commons began) Enoch replied to Roger Martin:

I am sorry that owing to absence at the Party Conference I was not able to answer sooner your letter of 29th September. This confirms that the first paragraph of amended CMQ '50 was in fact the reverse of correct. The true position is that the European (like other alien) seamen can at present only enter the UK to join ships in pursuance of a specific existing contract, whereas if Britain were a member of the Community they would be able to do so freely and without condition in accordance with the Community's rules governing freedom of movement.

You will no doubt have thought it right to issue a correction.

More alarm bells. No further correction had in fact been issued; the false Amended CMQ 50 still stood; and only Enoch had been informed that it was incorrect. The Grand Debate continued. There were more consultations, at ministerial level, with the DTI and the Home Office. The Great Debate ended. Still no reply came from Roger

Martin. The EEC Advisory Service was ended. The CMQ series of questions and answers was stopped. Amended CMQ 50 still remained on the list. Then, on /sloven,her 5 Roger Martin wrote to Enoch:

Thank you for your letter concerning Amended CMQ 50.

Please accept out sincere apologies both for the delay in replying and for the inconvenience this has caused. As you pointed out, paragraph 1 of the answer is in fact incorrect. The matter has now been dealt with and an amendment will be appearing.

On Tuesday of this week The Spectator made inquiries, asking Robert Milne and others whether in fact the promised amendment to the Amended CMQ 50 had appeared. It had not. Nor had any further correspondence taken place.

On Wednesday morning Mr Milne telephoned our office to say that the promised amendment would be issued irdmediately.