HC Deb 26 April 1972 vol 835 cc1671-737

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Buchan

I was saying that one of the difficulties that we face with the regulations that we seek to reject in these Amendments is that they are linked to the kind of agricultural policy that we do not believe is basically suitable for an industrial country like ours. Clearly the kind of policy that we need is based upon importing food at prices that we can afford and expanding our home production. The present agricultural structure has been organised as it is since the time of Tom Wiliams, and it is this basic structure that we want to unscramble.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

On a point of order. Sir Robert. Not long ago the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) raised a phoney point of order. Would you ask him to stop his committee meeting, because that is out of order?

The Chairman

I think that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has a point. There is rather too much noise in the Committee.

Mr. Buchan

Thank you, Sir Robert.

In place of the policy that we have operated so far, what is being proposed is what we seek to change, and we are disappointed to learn that there has been no real attempt drastically to change the CAP. The real problem of this policy is that it denies us the benefit of cheap imported food, and in the process of doing that helps to break links with the Commonwealth. Secondly, it has the curious agricultural characteristic of turning a good harvest into a bad one.

[Sir MYER GALPERN in the Chair]

What the policy is designed to do is to buy enough to push up prices, and at the same time to deprive people of the opportunity of cheap food on the home market. It therefore charges the taxpayer to buy up that part of the farm production which has committed the crime of keeping prices down. In other words, instead of a swings and round abouts relationship between tax, or payment for subsidy, and price, which is what prevailed here, we are to pay on each swing. We are to pay in the form of dear prices, and we are to pay in the form of taxation for the privilege of paying dear prices. That is basically the weakness of the policy that we are being asked to endorse in the Bill in general and in Clause 2(1) in particular.

The Chancellor made a great deal of the impossibility of dealing with this matter under this Clause, but he knows that the regulation with which we are dealing enshrines that policy. He knows, too, that if we pass subsection (1) unamended, all the rights, liabilities, obligations and restrictions—those passed during the last 10 years, and those that will be passed in the future arising in terms of the Commission or in terms of a qualifying vote—will be applied to us, so that the passing of this provision will remove the opportunity of parliamentary scrutiny over these regulations. That is why we must exclude these regulations from the operation of the Bill. The task is to insert this provision in the Bill in a form which will enable us to discuss the regulations, and the Chancellor of the Duchy should have understood that before he made his comments.

This also raises the whole question of sovereignty. I do not want to go over that ground again, but it is important to understand that since 1947–48, we have built up an extensive, though basically simple, apparatus of farm subsidies. I remind the Committee of the case that was quoted last night by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), the Walt Wilhelm case, in which there was an analysis of the problem. In that case, and in a more recent case, the court did not hesitate to uphold the supremacy of Community law, even over national constitutional law. The litigation before the German tribunal concerned the validity of an agricultural regulation which was challenged on the ground that it violated some basic rights guaranteed by the basic law.

Therefore, precisely, and in terms, one of the great case histories illustrating the supremacy of Community law, by definition, applies to agricultural matters, and it is no good the Chancellor saying, as he did in an intervention during a speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones), that things will go on as before. They will not. We still do not know the precise relationship between our existing forms and orders—we discussed one earlier in the week—and those which will face us in the Community, but clearly things will not go on as they did before.

The Chancellor of the Duchy cannot say that we shall lose only part of our sovereignty. It was Reynolds who said that sovereignty was like chastity—one could not lose a bit of it.

The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) spoke of the whole problem involved in the imposition of levies, reimbursements and intervention buying. He said that he had been shocked to hear a reference to rice. I assure him that he was right in what he heard. This commodity is referred to in our Amendments in relation to the financing of expenditure relating to intervention in the home market in rice.

The point the hon. Member for Banbury made was a deep and human problem. He related it to poverty, and this is the sort of matter that concerns us greatly. In other words, within the denned stupidity of this sort of double taxation there will be an altering of our relationship to the problem of world poverty as a whole. The Chancellor did not make an attempt to answer his hon. Friend's questions on this issue.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman argued in an intervention that the existing forms of consultation will continue. Let us consider whether he was right. At present we have a structure of consultation and advice which is already in the process of being unscrambled in legislation. The Minister of State has been active in this matter and I regret that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not in his place. In Scotland the wages committees have gone and in other parts of the country the agricultural executive committees are going. There is a general unscrambling of the local voice in consultation, so to speak.

Up to now consultation between the farming industry and the Government has been extremely deep. It has gone beyond consultation. The events leading up to the annual price review amount to a kind of negotiation. It is an annual stocktaking of the industry and at the end of the day the costs are agreed by both sides. The basic facts on which Government policy is made are agreed by the farmers.

This is a form of consultation of a very high order and it is on this basis that negotiations take place leading finally to the publication of the annual price review. This sort of consultation will go because it will be the Commission, with the acceptance or otherwise of the Council, which will determine the level of prices, along with the whole question of intervention, target prices and the rest. In its place will be substituted a curious kind of regional council or semi commodity-type body.

Let us consider the Advisory Committee on Beef and Veal. This comes under Article 2, which says: The Committee may be consulted by the Commission on all problems concerning the implementation of regulations. Secondly, the Chairman of the Committee may point out to the Commission that the Committee should be consulted on the matter. In other words, in place of the statutory responsibility for the annual consultation, negotiation and stocktaking between the industry and Government to which I have referred, there will be substituted an advisory committee of which the best that can be said is that it may be consulted by the Commission. The chairman of the committee may point out to the Commission that the committee should be consulted. The Commission may decide to consult the advisory committee. The committee need not be consulted before a decision is taken. The best that the chairman of the committee can do is that he may point out to the Commission that the committee should be consulted. This is a stripping-away of any real advisory function that has existed in agriculture.

The Solicitor-General

Is it not fair to point out that after the two passages which the hon. Gentleman has read out the decision goes on to say that the chairman of the committee shall take this initiative at the request in particular of one of the economic groups represented"? Although the hon. Gentleman is identifying two discretionary sentences at the beginning, a plain duty is laid on the chairman to take the initiative and to point out to the Commission that the committee should be consulted at the request in particular of one of the economic groups represented. It is right that the Committee should know the full purport of the decision.

Mr. Buchan

The point remains that if the Committee decides not to consult, the committee will not be consulted. The only obligation is that placed on the chairman to see the Commission. There is no obligation on the Commission to consult the advisory committee. This kind of "shall" and "may" argument occupies the Scottish Standing Committee for hour after hour.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart)

Has not the Scottish Standing Committee argued for days and hours on end the question of the difference between "shall" and "may" and often decided that there is no difference?

Mr. Buchan

Both the hon. Gentleman and I have had bitter experience of that. However, there is no dubiety about this. Even the Solicitor-General, with all his expertise, cannot argue that there is any duty imposed upon the Commission to consult. Therefore, the consultation point is a non-starter, and the Chancellor of the Duchy should have made that clear in the intervention which he made in the speech of my, hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen.

Then there is the question of the effect of the financing arrangements. I will not go over each of the regulations in turn. They are related to the question of the export refund and intervention buying—the basic financing of the structure. The effect on our economy will be serious. This has been spelt out sufficiently often for me not to spell it out again. Some of the figures given in last year's White Paper erred optimistically on the low side. There are few economists who would now like to stand by the figures produced at that time.

I want to consider the effect of these arrangements upon the British people. It is important to note that by changing from our present system of deficiency payment, which is a means of trying to strike a balance between the need to get a decent income for the farmer and to preserve a low price of food for the rest of the people, we are doing more than altering the price of food. We are altering the balance between the rich and the poor in Britain. The incidence of cost in food will not strike all sectors of society generally.

I hope that hon. Members will bear with me if I consider some of the conclusions arrived at as a result of the work done by the Trade Policy Research Centre, details of which have been published in the last two weeks. The T. E. Josling article, in particular, picks up the point: The switch to a system based on food prices changes the balance. This is the balance achieved in a deficiency payments system.

Low income and large households now pay more and those with high incomes pay less. This is the simple conclusion of the study group. He goes on to say that within the country as a whole the farming programme implies a large transfer to be made from families with an income below £36 a week to those above this income level. This regressive payment amounts to £67 million for the deficiency payments policy and £88 million for a variable import levy scheme: But with EEC system of price supports at the present levels of Common Market prices, the net transfer from those earning less than £36 a week is a formidable £504 million. This is a highly dramatic subsidy by the poor of this country to the Common Market adventurers, to the Conservative Party and to the rich of this country.

This is a consistent figure. For example, if we look at the way that the support costs, specifically on farming and not in relation to the support costs alone of the Common Market, we see that the poorest income quartile pays 11.2 per cent. and receives only 11 per cent. of the final income. On every single commodity the lowest income quartile pays a larger share of support costs for each programme taken separately than is its share of income. The highest income group pays in all cases a smaller share of costs than it receives in income.

So, throughout the whole gamut of the Common Market policy, quite apart from the additional costs it will put on the people of this country, it is viciously and savagely redistributing wealth within this country from the poor to the rich. This is what the Government have to face up to. They must either drastically alter their social benefit structure or they have to try to alter the basic form of the common agricultural policy. This is a duty that the people of this country expect of the Government and the Government must do it. I cannot say I have any great hopes because a Government which is to bring in the Speenhamland system and is now bringing in the corn laws for agricultural support is hardly likely to pay too much heed to that. But they have been warned and this is what is needed of them.

I want finally to deal very briefly with the question of what will now happen to the Common Market. It has been recognised that our application to join has prevented the CAP from changing. The policy was in the kind of situation where without the injection of money which will be provided by Britain the CAP would have had to change. This is precisely what President Pompidou meant in his television broadcast when he asked for the full-hearted support in the referendum. He said that without Britain's entry—and he mentioned Britain specifically and not all the entrants—the Common Market would perish. He called it the maladie de langueur, which I translate as meaning "will waste into a decline".

In other words, the opportunity was there, and it still might remain, for the Government effectively to change the CAP and one of the ways that they can do this is to accept this kind of Amendment. In other words, they must allow themselves the right somewhere in the Bill to provide the parliamentary backing that a Minister from this country will require if he is to secure the same agricultural policy within the Common Market that is demanded by the people of this country. It is in order to get that backing that I believe they will be prepared to accept the Amendments.

In between the two sections of my speech, having heard the comments about the support the policy was getting, I had a quick look through my newspaper files. The following quotations are all from the Scotsman, which supports entry. One issued contained the headline: Brussels will sprout bureaucrats. That is what we are dealing with in the regulations. On its agriculture page we read: The Highland Board view the Market entry with trepidation. We also read: Meat and Livestock Commission Chairman: Meat industry told not to expect rich EEC takings. In another issue we read: Farmers are warned that EEC growth may hit Scotland. I am stressing these comments because there is by no means such unanimity within the farming community that they will do well under the policy. The benefits will be sectional. They will lie with the wealthy, big farmer—above all, the cereal farmer. In some areas of Britain farmers will be seriously affected. I do not believe the farmers want to be governed under a policy which can only have the effect of making things difficult for some of their own members, but more significant, may turn some of the community against the farming community. We have managed very well to hold the balance between the needs to maintain a decent farming income and keeping reasonably cheap food for our people. Once we tilt the balance on to the cost of food that kind of antagonism will be created.

I do not believe, despite what the junior Minister told us, the old arguments that farmers used to use that once we got rid of Treasury restriction and the question of deficiency payments and so on farming could expand. The farming community will discover that

the consumer resistance of 50 million consumers to high prices can be every bit as stifling as the most intransigent Treasury official.

Therefore, both the farming community and the people want to see a change in the common agricultural policy to which the Government are attempting to condemn themselves. If it is extracted from the subsection that will give us an opportunity to create elsewhere in the Bill the kind of parliamentary discussion which could give a Minister in the future the backing of parliamentary pressure. Otherwise, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is condemning us through the Bill not only to all the problems we raised last night but to a most stupid form of agricultural financing.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 205, Noes 231.

Division No. 154.] AYES [10.38 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Duffy, A. E. P. Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Dunn, James A. Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Armstrong, Ernest Eadie, Alex Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ashley, Jack Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Atkinson, Norman Ellis, Tom Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) English, Michael Judd, Frank
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) Evans, Fred Kaufman, Gerald
Biffen, John Ewing, Henry Kerr, Russell
Blenkinsop, Arthur Faulds, Andrew Kinnock, Neil
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Fisher,Mrs.Doris (B'ham,Ladywood) Lambie, David
Body, Richard Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Lamond, James
Booth, Albert Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Latham, Arthur
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Foley, Maurice Leadbitter, Ted
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Foot, Michael Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Ford, Ben Leonard, Dick
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Forrester, John Lestor, Miss Joan
Buchan, Norman Fraser, John (Norwood) Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Gilbert, Dr. John Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) Lipton, Marcus
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Golding, John Lomas, Kenneth
Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield) Gourlay, Harry Loughlin, Charles
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Grant, George (Morpeth) Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) McBride, Neil
Conlan, Bernard Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. McCartney, Hugh
Crawshaw, Richard Hamilton. James (Bothwell) McElhone, Frank
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) McGuire, Michael
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Hamling, William Mackenzie, Gregor
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) Hardy, Peter McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Dalyell, Tam Harrison. Walter (Wakefield) McNamara, J. Kevin
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Hattersley, Roy Marquand, David
Davidson, Arthur Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Marsden, F.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Heffer, Eric S. Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Horam, John Marten, Neil
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Huckfield, Leslie Mayhew, Christopher
Deakins, Eric Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Meacher, Michael
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Hughes, Mark (Durham) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Mendelson, John
Dempsey, James Hughes, Roy (Newport) Mikardo, Ian
Doig, Peter Hunter, Adam Miller, Dr. M. S.
Dormand, J. D. Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Milne, Edward
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce John, Brynmor Moate, Roger
Driberg, Tom Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Molyneaux, James
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Robertson, John (Paisley) Torney, Tom
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor) Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Moyle, Roland Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees) Urwin, T. W.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) Varley, Eric G.
Murray, Ronald King Sandelson, Neville Wainwright, Edwin
Oakes, Gordon Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne) Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
O'Halloran, Michael Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
O'Malley, Brian Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne) Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Oram, Bert Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.) Watkins, David
Orbach, Maurice Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Weitzman, David
Orme, Stanley Sillars, James Wellbeloved, James
Oswald, Thomas Skinner, Dennis White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton) Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.) Whitehead, Phillip
Palmer, Arthur Spearing, Nigel Whitlock, William
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) Spriggs, Leslie Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Pendry, Tom Stallard, A. W. Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Pentland, Norman Steel, David Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Stewart, Donald (Western Isles) Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Stoddart, David (Swindon) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Price, William (Rugby) Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John Woof, Robert
Probert, Arthur Strang, Gavin
Rankin, John Swain, Thomas TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Reed, D. (Sedgefield) Taverne, Dick Mr. Joseph Harper and
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.) Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.) Mr. Donald Coleman.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Adley, Robert Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Alison Michael (Barkston Ash) Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Kershaw, Anthony
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Emery, Peter Kimball, Marcus
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Eyre, Reginald King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Fenner, Mrs. Peggy King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Astor, John Fidler, Michael Kinsey, J. R.
Atkins, Humphrey Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstesd) Kirk, Peter
Awdry, Daniel Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Kitson, Timothy
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Fookes, Miss Janet Knight, Mrs. Jill
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord Fortescue, Tim Knox, David
Batsford, Brian Fox, Marcus Lane, David
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Langford-Holt, Sir John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Gardner, Edward Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Berry, Hn. Anthony Gibson-Watt, David Le Merchant, Spencer
Biggs-Davison, John Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Blaker, Peter Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Goodhew, Victor Longden, Sir Gilbert
Boscawen, Robert Gorst, John Loveridge, John
Bowden, Andrew Gower, Raymond Luce, R. N.
Braine, Sir Bernard Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) MacArthur, Ian
Bray, Ronald Gray, Hamish McCrindle, R. A.
Brinton, Sir Tatton Green, Alan McLaren, Martin
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Grylls, Michael Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Gummer, Selwyn McNair-Wilson, Michael
Bryan, Paul Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Burden, F. A. Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Maddan, Martin
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Madel, David
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&Nairn) Hannam, John (Exeter) Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Carlisle, Mark Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Mather, Carol
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Haselhurst, Alan Maude, Angus
Channon, Paul Hastings, Stephen Maudling. Rt. Hn. Reginald
Chapman, Sydney Havers, Michael Mawby, Ray
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Hawkins, Paul Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Churchill, W. S. Hay, John Meyer, Sir Anthony
Clegg, Walter Hayhoe, Barney Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Cockeram, Eric Heseltine, Michael Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Cooke, Robert Hicks, Robert Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Cooper, A. E. Higgins, Terence L. Money, Ernle
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick Hiley, Joseph Monks, Mrs. Connie
Cormack, Patrick Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Monro, Hector
Costain, A. P. Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Montgomery, Fergus
Critchley, Julian Holland, Philip More, Jasper
Crouch, David Holt, Miss Mary Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Crowder, F. P. Hordern, Peter Morrison, Charles
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hornby, Richard Mudd, David
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Dean, Paul Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Neave, Airey
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Digby, Simon Wingfield Hunt, John Normanton, Tom
Dixon, Piers Iremonger, T. L. Nott, John
Drayson, G. B. James, David Onslow, Cranley
Dykes, Hugh Jessel, Toby Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Eden, Sir John Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Osborn John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Jopling, Michael Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Page, Graham (Crosby) Scott, Nicholas Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Page, John (Harrow, W.) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Waddington, David
Parkinson, Cecil Simeons, Charles Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Peel, John Skeet, T. H. H. Wall, Patrick
Percival, Ian Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) Walters, Dennis
Pike, Miss Mervyn Soref, Harold Ward, Dame Irene
Pink, R. Bonner Speed, Keith Warren, Kenneth
Price, David (Eastleigh) Spence, John Weatherill, Bernard
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Sproat, Iain White, Roger (Gravesend)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis Stanbrook, Ivor Wiggin, Jerry
Raison, Timothy Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper) Wilkinson, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.) Winterton, Nicholas
Redmond, Robert Stokes, John Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Rees, Peter (Dover) Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.) Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Tebbit, Norman Woodnutt, Mark
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Temple, John M. Worsley, Marcus
Ridsdale, Julian Thomas John Stradling (Monmouth) Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) Younger, Hn. George
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) Tilney, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Trew, Peter Mr. Oscar Murton and
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Tugendhat, Christopher Mr. Kenneth Clarke.
Rost, Peter van Straubenzee. W. R.
St. John-Stevas, Norman

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 104, in page 2, line 26, after 'Treaties', insert: 'except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as arise under the following regulations and notices dealing with Agricultural Finance, namely, Regulations Nos. 17/64, 127/64, 155/66, 653/68, 988/68,

1135/68, 449/69, 786/69, 787/69, 788/69, 2052/69, 2334/69, 728/70, 729/70, 2305/70, 2306/70, 1096/71, 1697/71, and 2181/71, Notification 69/261'.—[Mr. Shore.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 202, Noes 232.

Division No. 155.] AYES [10.50 p.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Driberg, Tom John, Brynmor
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Duffy, A. E. P. Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Armstrong Ernest Dunn, James A. Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Ashley, Jack Eadie, Alex Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Atkinson, Norman Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Ellis, Tom Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Barnett. Joel (Heywood and Royton) English, Michael Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Biffen, John Evans, Fred Judd, Frank
Blenkinsop, Arthur Ewing, Henry Kaufman, Gerald
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Faulds, Andrew Kerr, Russell
Body, Richard Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood) Kinnock, Neil
Booth, Albert Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Lambie, David
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Lamond, James
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Foley, Maurice Latham, Arthur
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Foot, Michael Leadbitter, Ted
Buchan, Norman Ford, Ben Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Forrester, John Leonard, Dick
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) Fraser, John (Norwood) Lestor, Miss Joan
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Gilbert, Dr. John Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Golding, John Lipton, Marcus
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Gourlay, Harry Lomas, Kenneth
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Grant, George (Morpeth) Loughlin, Charles
Cohen, Stanley Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Conlan, Bernard Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Crawshaw, Richard Hamilton, James (Bothwell) McBride, Neil
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) McCartney, Hugh
Cunningham, G (Islington, S.W.) Hamling, William McElhone, Frank
Cunningham, Dr J. A. (Whitehaven) Hardy, Peter McGuire, Michael
Dalyell, Tam Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Mackenzie, Gregor
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Hattersley, Roy McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Davidson, Arthur Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis McNamara, J. Kevin
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Heffer, Eric S. Marquand, David
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Horam, John Marsden, F.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Huckfield, Leslie Marten, Neil
Deakins, Eric Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Hughes, Mark (Durham) Meacher, Michael
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Dempsey, James Hughes, Roy (Newport) Mendelson, John
Doig, Peter Hunter, Adam Mikardo, Ian
Dormand, J. D. Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Miller, Dr. M. S.
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Milne, Edward
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Moate, Roger Reed, D. (Sedgefield) Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff,W.)
Molyneaux, James Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.) Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Richard, Ivor Torney, Tom
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Robertson, John (Paisley) Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Moyle, Roland Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor) Urwin, T. W.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees) Varley, Eric G.
Murray, Ronald King Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) Wainwright, Edwin
Oakes, Gordon Sandelson, Neville Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
O'Halloran, Michael Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne) Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
O'Malley, Brian Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) Watkins, David
Oram, Bert Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne) Weitzman, David
Orbach, Maurice Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.) Wellbeloved, James
Orme, Stanley Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Oswald, Thomas Sillars, James Whitehead, Phillip
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton) Skinner, Dennis Whitlock, William
Paget, R. T. Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Palmer, Arthur Spearing, Nigel Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) Spriggs, Leslie Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Pendry, Tom Stallard, A. W. Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Pentland, Norman Stewart, Donald (Western Isles) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Stoddart, David (Swindon) Woof, Robert
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Price, William (Rugby) Strang, Gavin Mr. Joseph Harper and
Probert, Arthur Swain, Thomas Mr. Donald Coleman.
Rankin, John Taverne, Dick
Adley, Robert Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Emery, Peter Kershaw, Anthony
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Eyre, Reginald Kimball, Marcus
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Fenner, Mrs. Peggy King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Fidler, Michael King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Astor, John Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Kinsey, J. R.
Atkins, Humphrey Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Kirk, Peter
Awdry, Daniel Fookes, Miss Janet Kitson, Timothy
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Fortescue, Tim Knight, Mrs. Jill
Balniel, Lord Fox, Marcus Knox, David
Batsford, Brian Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Lane, David
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Gardner, Edward Langford-Holt, Sir John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Gibson-Watt, David Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Berry, Hn. Anthony Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Le Merchant, Spencer
Biggs-Davison, John Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Blaker, Peter Goodhew, Victor Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Gorst, John Longden, Gilbert
Boscawen, Robert Gower, Raymond Loveridge, John
Bowden, Andrew Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Luce, R. N.
Braine, Bernard Gray, Hamish MacArthur, Ian
Bray, Ronald Green, Alan McCrindie, R. A.
Brinton, Sir Tatton Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) McLaren, Martin
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Grylls, Michael Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Gummer, Selwyn McNair-Wilson, Michael
Bryan, Paul Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Burden, F. A. Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Maddan, Martin
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Madel, David
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn) Hannam, John (Exeter) Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Carlisle, Mark Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Mather, Carol
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Haselhurst, Alan Maude, Angus
Channon, Paul Hastings, Stephen Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Chapman, Sydney Havers, Michael Mawby, Ray
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Hawkins, Paul Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Churchill, W. S. Hay, John Meyer, Sir Anthony
Clegg, Walter Hayhoe, Barney Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Cockeram, Eric Heseltine, Michael Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Cooke, Robert Hicks, Robert Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Cooper, A. E. Higgins, Terence L. Money, Ernle
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick Hiley, Joseph Monks, Mrs. Connie
Cormack, Patrick Hill, Jonn E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Monro, Hector
Costain, A. P. Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Montgomery, Fergus
Critchley, Julian Holland, Philip More, Jasper
Crouch, David Holt, Miss Mary Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Crowder, F. P. Hordern, Peter Morrison, Charles
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hornby, Richard Mudd, David
d'Avigdor-Goldmid,Maj. Gen. James Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Dean, Paul Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Neave, Airey
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Digby, Simon Wingfield Hunt, John Normanton, Tom
Dixon, Piers Iremonger, T. L. Nott, John
Drayson, G. B. James, David Onslow, Cranley
Dykes, Hugh Jessel, Toby Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Eden, Sir John Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Osborn, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Jopling, Michael Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Page, John (Harrow, W.) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Parkinson, Cecil Simeons, Charles Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Peel, John Skeet, T. H. H. Wall, Patrick
Percival, Ian Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) Walters, Dennis
Pike, Miss Mervyn Soref, Harold Ward, Dame Irene
Pink, R. Bonner Speed, Keith Warren, Kenneth
Price, David (Eastleigh) Spence, John Weatherill, Bernard
Proudfoot, Wilfred Sproat, Iain White, Roger (Gravesend)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis Stanbrook, Ivor Wiggin, Jerry
Raison, Timothy Steel, David Wilkinson, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper) Winterton, Nicholas
Redmond, Robert Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) Stokes, John Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.) Woodnutt, Mark
Ridsdale, Julian Tebbit, Norman Worsley, Marcus
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey Temple, John M. Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Boberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth) Younger, Hn. George
Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Tilney, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Rost, Peter Trew, Peter Mr. Oscar Murton and
St. John-Stevas, Norman Tugendhat, Christopher Mr. Kenneth Clarke.
Scott, Nicholas van Straubenzee, W. R

Question accordingly negatived.

11.0 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler (Wood Green)

I beg to move Amendment No. 111, in page 2, line 26, after 'Treaties', insert 'except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as arise under the following directives dealing with food standards, namely, Directive of 23rd October 1962, Directives Nos. 64/54, 65/66, 67/427 and 70/357'.

The Temporary Chairman

With this Amendment it would be convenient also to discuss Amendment No. 110,in line 26, after 'Treaties', insert 'except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as arise under the following regulations dealing with poultry meat, namely Regulations Nos. 123/67, 146/67, 176/67, and 2595/69'. Amendment No. 113, in line 26, after 'Treaties', insert 'except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as arise under the following regulations dealing with beef and veal, namely, Regulations Nos. 805/68, 1025/68, 1071/68, 1072/68, 1082/68, 1084/68, 1097/68, 1261/68, and 216/69'. Amendment No. 114, in line 26, after 'Treaties', insert 'except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as arise under the following regulations dealing with processed products, namely, Regulations Nos. 204/69, 1059/69, 520/70, and 1152/71'. Amendment No. 115, in line 26, after 'Treaties', insert 'except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as arise under the following regulations and decisions dealing with agricultural products, namely, Regulation 26 of 4th April, 1962, Regulations Nos. 827/68 and 204/69, and Decision 204/69'. and Amendment No. 116, in line 26, after 'Treaties', insert 'except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as arise under the following regulations dealing with pigmeat, namely, Regulations Nos. 121/67, 133/67, 134/67, 137/67, 177/67, 202/67, 204/67, 213/67, 391/68, 564/68, 739/68, 897/69, 2593/69, 2108/70, 2395/70, 289/71, 1252/71, and 1570/71'.

Mrs. Butler

Amendment No. 111, and the others we are taking with it, seek to exclude the directives on food standards on poultry meat, beef and veal, processed foods, agricultural products and pigmeat.

This is an extremely detailed series of directives, and for that reason, I shall confine what I say to Part 26 which deals with food standards and to that section of Part 26 which is concerned with food colours, and I hope that my hon. Friends who have made a special study of some of the other products in these Amendments may be able to deal with those.

As the Committee will know, food colours in this country have been restricted to a permitted list since June, 1967. There are now 24 coal tar colours on this permitted list for use in this country, one earlier one, ponceau MX, having been removed in 1970. This is a great advance in food technology because it means that all colours in use in food have been approved by experts and are reasonably safe in use. I stress "reasonably" because it is not possible to prove that any particular colour is completely harmless. All the experts can say is that, as far as is known, none have caused actual harm.

All are coal-tar based, which means that they are close to compounds which can be cancer-producing, so we have to be extremely careful before making any changes in the permitted list. We have to be absolutely sure that any colours we add to it, as we shall have to when we harmonise with the E.E.C., are as safe as they possibly can be. We are discussing food technology where this kind of safety is important. We have to accept that colours add no kind of nutritional value to food and serve no practical purpose, as do preservatives, so, from the consumer's point of view, it could be said that the fewer colours permitted, the better.

They add eye appeal to food and this is the only reason for using them. Eye appeal is very much conditioned by what we are accustomed to and, for that reason, colours in one country differ from those in another. Whereas we have highly-coloured green peas and other vegetables in this country, in other countries, in the E.E.C. they do not. They are not accustomed to them and are not worried about lack of colour.

On the question of the number of colours, I am puzzled by the list which appears in Part 26 because, adding up the list of colours on the E.E.C. permitted list and adding two, erythrosin and glossy green which I gather have been added by directive 67/653, the total would seem to come to 29, but the expert advice I have is that the E.E.C. list is only 19. This is a matter of some importance because, obviously, we do not want to be approving any more colours than we have to.

Only 10 of these colours are common to our own permitted list. Of the remaining 14 on our permitted list we have agreed to drop seven, but have asked the Community to accept the other seven. It would be helpful to the Committee, and, indeed, to the public, if we could be told why we have agreed to drop the seven colours which are on our permitted list. Are they less safe than the others, or are they less useful than the others? What is the criterion? They were approved by our own experts, or by experts in other countries from whom we took advice. We regarded them as necessary, and it would be interesting to know why we no longer regard them as necessary or important.

Also it would be very helpful to know on what basis we are pressing for the addition of the seven other colours on the E.E.C. list. The directive permits us to use those seven other colours for five years from the date of accession, but at the end of that time they will not be permanently authorised unless the E.E.C. is satisfied that they are proved not injurious to health. The question in my mind, and that of anybody who is interested in this subject, is, what happens if there is disagreement over this at the end of the transitional period? Also, what machinery will there be for resolving it? Will it be necessary to have unanimity, or shall we require a majority of 12 votes on the E.E.C. Standing Committee for Foodstuffs? How does the Minister expect this kind of dispute to work out, bearing in mind that on this sort of thing harmonisation has taken place earlier with the countries of the Six? If he can give us advice on how this was resolved in the past it would be very helpful.

Can he also say something about what will be the effect of the weighting provision to which reference is made, in cases of this kind?

Of even greater importance when we are considering food colours, and of great importance to the British consumer, is the doubt which our own experts have expressed about four colours on the EEC list. The colours are chrysoines, orange GGN, scarlet GN, and ponceau 6R. Our experts have refused to accept those four colours. They do not consider that the evidence on their safety is at present sufficient. We are allowed by the Treaty of Accession to continue to prohibit their use—again, for five years from the date of accession. In the meantime the EEC will let our experts know what the basis of its studies of these four colours will have been.

After that, what happens? If our experts are still not satisfied about the safety of those four colours, where do we go from there? Shall we be forced eventually to accept them, even if our own experts are still doubtful? Surely, in the public interest, there can be no compromise on a matter of this kind if there is real doubt about safety? When our own permitted list was agreed we could discuss in the House particular colours, and, indeed, there was a good deal of comment in the House, and a good deal of public pressure, which resulted in six colours being removed from that list.

Although we are always in the hands of technical experts on these matters, where this is a difference between experts surely it should be the public interest, the consumer interest and the consumers' voice which should be the deciding factor. We are entitled to know what will be the deciding factors in resolving this dispute. If there is deadlock and our experts are still not satisfied about safety, what will happen? Will the Minister assure us that they will not be browbeaten into surrendering their point of view?

Another factor in assessing food colours is that of need. It is difficult to prove that these four colours are needed in addition to all the other colours which have been approved. Consumers do not realise that chocolate flavoured products are dyed brown and black currant flavoured products are dyed violet, and so on. They do not realise that strawberry jam is dyed red, having first been bleached white. If they did realise these things, they would wonder why we need all the colours which we shall have to accept under this directive.

Our system gives a limited voice to consumers through Parliament and through consumer representation on the Food Standards Committee and other advisory bodies. It is in the public interest that the power of consumer voice should be increased and that consumer interests should not just be handed over to a committee in Europe where all the trade interests are knocking on the door and there is no comparable consumer lobby.

It is unlikely that the Minister will accept the Amendments, so I ask for an assurance on these points. If the Clause goes through unamended, as it almost certainly will, will he at least consider the possibility of establishing here a top-level consumer committee to examine the subject under discussion in the Amendments. A continuing scrutinising EEC consumer committee in this country might be a small crumb of comfort to the British public which has no idea of the changes in food standards which the Treaty of Accession will bring.

There are many other details in this complex subject which should be debated in greater depth and at greater length. No one can quarrel with the idea of harmonisation. It is obviously desirable that more and more countries should agree on what food colours and other additives are safe, but when they agree they should do so on the basis that one country should not be forced to accept the views of other countries. All the interests concerned—consumers, traders, officials and experts—should take part in these discussions. For these reasons, we cannot possibly be satisfied with this directive and I ask the Committee to accept the Amendment.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes

I should like to draw attention to Regulation 3 of the Directive of 5th November, 1963 which, for some reason that remains obscure to me, is numbered 64/54. It says: Member States shall authorise the smoking of certain foodstuffs only in smoke produced from wood or ligneous vegetable matter, in the natural state, excluding wood or vegetable matter impregnated, coloured, gummed, painted or having been treated in a similar manner, and provided that smoking entails no risk to human health. As a passionate consumer of Craster and other kippers, may I ask the Minister for an assurance that the use of im- pregnated or ligneous vegetable matter in the smoking of kippers, salmon and other delectables shall continue to be permitted.

I accept that there is a fine distinction between a preservative and a colourant in the matter of the smoking of kippers to which it would be the proper duty of the Committee to turn its attention, but in general this illustrates once more the weakness of the Government's method of legislating on our harmonisation.

The consumption per capita of Craster kippers on the continent is as nothing compared with their consumption in this country. Directives or regulations which are entirely proper in regard to preservatives, colourants or other material for a continental group of consumers, whose habits do not include kippers, are erroneous and irrelevant to the mass of the British public who consume kippers for breakfast or for anything else.

We have already signed to prohibit the use, except for Isle of Man, of kippers which do not use these oil additives in their ligneous matter. It has already been said that we are not to allow this. This is an absurdity. Is the British breakfast table to be deprived of its kipper on the direction of the Community simply because it was not included in a directive? This may be something of an absurd point, but it serves to illustrate how crazy is the immediate acceptance of these regulations, directives and decisions.

I turn to a much more serious area, the area covered by the Swarm Report on the use in animal feedingstuffs of antibiotics. This represents a considerable risk to food standards and to health, and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have accepted in broad terms the recommendations of the Swann Report on the undesirability of massive use of antibiotics in animal feedingstuffs. I accept that we have not debated this matter, but I feel that we have accepted that the massive use in feedingstuff additives of antibiotics carries with it a considerable risk to human health.

I turn to a non-British piece of evidence, namely, the report of the United States Federal Department of Agriculture, Task Force. Its recommendations on the use of such additives suggest: …the Task Force recommends the following restrictions on antibacterial agents used in feed….Tetracyclines, streptomycin, dihy-drostreptomycin, sulfonamides and penicillins: in poultry, January 1, 1973; in swine, cattle and sheep, July 1, 1973. All other approved antibiotics, December 31, 1973. In our negotiations with the Community, we have striven to arrive at a reasonable compromise and agreement between what is permitted for our livestock fatteners and what is permitted for those in the European Community.

It is quite clear that the use of such antibiotics increases the live weight gain of the animals fed on them. However, we are concerned about the food standard resulting from such activities, since they may be detrimental to the humans who eat them.

If we permit the over-extensive use of such antibiotics under a Common Market directive, we present a risk to the human population of this country who eat the food. As consumers, we are put at risk in a way that our current legislation forbids. Yet unless we change our ways, our domestic producers are disadvantaged vis-à-vis their European competitors in producing food for the British table.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) said, this is not a matter of being pro or anti British entry into the Community. It is a matter of human health hazard in which our presence in or our absence from the Community is an irrelevance. We are concerned to see that no human being in this country or in Europe shall be left open to the risk of eating over-impregnated meat.

At the end of last year, a member of the Confederation of Feeding Stuff Manufacturers presented a paper on the subject at a conference in Paris. In the course of his remarks, he said: A European audience such as this will of course be immediately struck by the difference in attitude towards antibiotics under U.K. and E.E.C. legislation. The E.E.C. Directive on Additives in Animal Feeding Stuffs, approved by the Council of Ministers on 23rd November, 1970, requires member states to adjust their own national legislation within a period of two years to permit, amongst other things, the inclusion of a wide range of antibiotics at low levels in animal feeding stuffs without prescription. So while we in the U.K. have prohibited the continued use at low levels in animal feed of those antibiotics which have a party to play in human and veterinary medicine, the E.E.C. have condoned this practice over the full range of available antibiotics. It appears to me that we have gone back on a series of Statutory Instruments and other legislation passed through this House safeguarding the health of the people of this country, and we have accepted that antibiotics which two or three years ago we held to be unsafe shall be held to be safe two or three years hence. We have, perhaps, the safeguard of further negotiations. We have, perhaps, the safeguard of further technical adaptations. Such safeguards, I fear, may well be worthless, and certainly nothing in subsection (1) gives any suggestion of an adequate safeguard.

What one is concerned with in this Amendment is that while there may be areas of EEC food standards, directives, regulations and legislation that are highly desirable, there are other areas—I have indicated one somewhat flippantly, namely, kippers, though to the people of South Shields, Craster and Aberdeen it is far from flippant—in which the use of antibiotics in livestock feed is unsatisfactory, and unless there are far more satisfactory guarantees for the non-disadvantaging of British produces, and more importantly British consumers, the health of the people of this country will be put at risk in a way which no hon. Member, regardless of party allegiance and his stance on the matter of entry or non-entry, can willingly accept.

Mr. Thomas Torney (Bradford, South)

It is a pity that a subject that is so vital and important to every one of us, as the nation's health surely must be, should be debated at this late hour, particularly as there can be little freshness amongst hon. Members on both sides of the House, bearing in mind that we were here well into the night last night, too. The nation's health is very important, and it is something that we should have discussed when we were fresh to do so.

I want to deal with food standards and with Amendment No. 111. There are five directives which we are seeking to remove by the Amendment. There is the directive on colour, which has been so adequately dealt with by my hon. Friend. There is the directive dealing with preservatives in foodstuffs, that is No. 64/54. There is No. 65/66, dealing with the criteria of purity in the preservatives that are used. There is No. 67/427 dealing with the external treatment of citrus fruit by the use of amazing chemicals, the names of which I cannot pronounce. There is directive No. 73/357 which deals with antioxidants to avoid deterioration, and so on.

I have studied these directives, as I have this Community document on food standards. I intend only to try to fill in the gaps that have been left by my hon. Friend, because I know that hon. Members would like to go home to bed. Nevertheless, there is one important aspect with which I hope the Minister will deal when he replies to the debate. It is a matter which has not so far been mentioned.

As everyone, I hope, knows, we have dealt with this situation for many years by means of Statutory Instruments, and I could list five of which I know. There may be many more, in addition to the various Acts of Parliament. There is Statutory Instrument 105/67, relating to Scotland. The others are Nos. 1500/66, 1532/62, 1926/62, again relating to Scotland, and in 1971 there was No. 882.

If one looks at those Statutory Instruments, one finds listed not only the preservatives and various chemicals that can be used in the regulations of the EEC, but also the preservatives that can be used in food. Our Statutory Instruments list not only the permitted chemicals but the items in which they may be used, including margarine, bread and beer. We are now to switch from this system to a series of directives from a remote body of people in Europe who will tell us all about our kippers but not about how and in what the chemicals shall be used.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT FERRIS in the Chair]

11.30 p.m.

The health of our people must be the number one priority. A close second is the protection of our important food manufacturing industry, of which I know a little from my experience as a trade union official. Not only is this an important industry, but in these days of over 1 million unemployed I am anxious to protect any industry which helps to keep the unemployment figures down.

It is worth remembering that apart from colouring matter used in the preparation of kippers—this must have a bearing on the employment situation in Scot- land—the same type of colouring matter is used in chocolates, cakes and sugar confectionery generally. I will not at this late hour discuss the competition that our food manufacturing industry will face in the Community, but it is bound to be considerable. Suffice to say that the main use of colouring matter is to make good products more attractive, and unless they are attractive they will not sell, either here or in Europe.

Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is right to use colouring in kippers so that we can sell more attractive kippers than Common Market kippers but that it is wrong to use colouring matter for other products, even though they may look less attractive?

Mr. Torney

The hon. Gentleman has clearly not followed my argument. The question of the use of colouring has been explained to the Committee more clearly than I could explain it, and I certainly do not intend to go into the question of kippers. It is necessary to use colouring matter in chocolate, cakes and sugar confectionery, to make the products more attractive, whether they are to be sold to British consumers or whether we are to export them to the Common Market. This is why we want to be able to continue to use some of these colouring matters. Unless agreement can be reached on this matter, we shall have to stop using colouring additives after 1975.

The chemical propyl gallate is widely used in the United Kingdom food industry. It is not included in the EEC directive. The use of this chemical will have to cease by 1977 unless an agreement can be reached.

If there is no possibility of agreement being reached on these matters, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us whether this will adversely affect the food manufacturing industry. Are there good substitutes?

Ethoxyquin is used on apples and pears to prevent a disease called scald. This chemical is not in the agreement. If we cannot use the proper chemicals to avoid diseases, further troubles arise. Is there likely to be an agreement before 1977 on the use of this chemical? If not, what substitutes are available? Are there other means within the terms of the EEC directives by which we can avoid losing our fruit business and being forced to buy all our fruit from abroad?

The Solicitor-General

The whole debate, although discussion was permitted on a wider range of Amendments, has been concentrated on Amendment No. 111. That concentration enables me to make a point which is of some importance. All the instruments referred to in Amendment No. 111 are in the form of directives. They are five directives dealing with food additives. The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Mark Hughes) is the only hon. Member who went outside that field into the question of antibiotic additives to feedingstuffs. That point does not arise on any of the instruments covered by any of these Amendments.

The importance of all these questions raised by hon. Members with force, effectiveness and great thought, particularly by the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), who pays so much attention to these matters, is that they arise on directives. As the Committee by now well knows, directives are not directly applicable. They are matters which are directed to the member States of the Community, including ourselves when we join. It will be for us to implement the legislation necessary to give effect to these directives when the time comes, either in 1973 to 1977.

Part B of Schedule 4 makes the necessary amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, so as to ensure that all the changes arising from the directives so far discussed will be made by our ordinary Statutory Instrument procedure, subject to negative Resolution. Therefore, when the time comes to implement these matters, even then they will be subject to further discussion and further parliamentary scrutiny and control.

The Amendment is not one which is either in point or acceptable in the context of Clause 2(1). It does not diminish the importance of the debate we have had, because it is important that the country should know the extent to which hon. Members—at whatever time of the day or night, whatever our condition, with or without our personal food additives to keep us going—are concerned about these matters.

It is also important that the Community should know that we are concerned about these matters in the detail with which the hon. Member for Wood Green has dealt with the points she raised. On many of these matters negotiations are continuing and will continue over the next four or five years and it is important that the strength of feeling here on them should be appreciated within the Community.

Certainly my right hon. and hon. Friends who are responsible for these matters are here tonight and have listened closely to everything that has been said. The negotiations which will be taking place over the next five years until 1977 will be in the interest of the diversity of interests that hon. Members have referred to. Of course we want to ensure the prosperity and competitiveness of our food manufacturing industry. That is one of the interests. Of course we want to ensure adequate consumer protection. which is another of the interests. Of course we want to ensure that United Kingdom producers or manufacturers are not threatened by unfair advantages which are still available to Community producers who are operating on lower standards of safety or health than those we regard as acceptable.

We have to balance all these matters. To try to secure the correct harmonisation for all these interests it is important that the various points of view expressed here should be taken into account.

I can assure the hon. Member for Wood Green that quite apart from the consultation that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has with the manufacturers in the industry, consumer interests have been and will continue to be consulted on the application of Community food law. For that matter, consumer interests are also consulted within the Community itself. The hon. Member asked why Britain was pressing for only seven colours of the 14 that are involved. In some cases it is because we do not have strong enough toxological data to justify pressing for them, and it may be an advantage that we have reached that point. On others it is because they are scarcely used in the United Kingdom, and the third explanation is that we have been able to find an alternative colour to the one we now use.

The hon. Lady asked how we could be sure of safeguarding our future interests in further discussions with the Community. This is being discussed with experts in the Community's scientific committee on which we shall be represented when we join. The issues are those of safety in use on which it should be possible to reach agreement at the technical level, given adequate time and evidence. Certainly the particular points to which she referred will be looked at.

Without notice I could not respond to the two questions by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) about the additives to which he referred but his remarks will be taken into account. The hon. Member for Durham was primarily concerned with the addition of antibiotics to animal food. As he said we have agreed to differ from the Community at this stage. The Community requirements permitting the use of antibiotics will not apply within the United Kingdom during the transitional period and we have that length of time within which to discuss these matters. There is reason to believe that the Community will be coming round to our view on that important matter. But his contribution is important and valuable because it underlines the importance we attach in this House in the continuing negotiation of such matters.

Mr. Mark Hughes

Can the Solicitor-General indicate whether any compensation will be paid to British farmers in third markets consequent upon them not being allowed to use such antibiotics which clearly add to live weight gains. Their EEC rivals are permitted to use these antibiotics and will be permitted to do so during the transitional period.

11.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

I think the hon. Gentleman knows there is no such compensation available. It is for that reason that we shall press along the lines indicated for harmonisation upwards on this front. There is also the health point. Both matters underline the importance of the point the hon. Gentleman made.

The future of the British kipper is a matter close to the heart, or some other part of the anatomy, of many hon. Members, even at this time of night. There is, I understand, no significant difference between our present requirements and those of the Community, so that there will be no change, either for Craster kippers or kippers generally.

There has been some misconceived comment on the effect of Community rules on the coloration of kippers. Quite apart from the method of treatment, there is concern that the colour of the British kipper might change. The changes we shall have to make will not result in any change in the appearance of that familiar piece of British diet.

It is worth reflecting that the directive to which the hon. Gentleman referred, Directive 54/64, dealing with the matter, was well-known to the House and the last Government. It was one of those that must have been embraced in the enthusiastic welcome the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, gave in the early days of his application. Therefore, whatever may be feared to be happening to the British kipper can be laid at the door of the last Government. The threats to the British kipper were certainly something they accepted with their eyes open. They took great care, as we have, to see that the British kipper will be unharmed.

On that basis, I commend the Committee to reject the Amendments.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones (Eccles)

In view of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), we should have had on the Government Front Bench someone from the Ministry for the Arts. We have had a lawyer and someone from the Ministry of Agriculture, but we have all been talking about colour as well as matters concerning them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green and I are concerned not so much about colour, which is an extremely good selling point, as the medical effects of trying to improve the quality of food and in so doing contaminating it. My hon. Friend and I have fought for action on this for a very long time. We are not satisfied with the British standards with regard to colouration and additives, and we do not believe that the EEC countries have a higher standard. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment, because inadequate British standards are preferable to the worst standards in the EEC.

Mr. Marten

With my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture present, I want to raise briefly the question of poultry meat. The poultry industry is anxious about the need for ante- and postmortem veterinary inspection of all poultry. Poultry is referred to in Amendment No. 110. I do not think we have enough veterinary surgeons to meet the need by the time we enter the Common Market, if we do. Therefore our poultry producers, who will have to meet competition from the Common Market countries from 1st January, 1973, will be put at a disadvantage because of the lack of inspectors. Is my right hon. Friend satisfield that there will be enough inspectors by then?

Secondly, the hygiene regulations which we must obey if we go into the Common Market will, I believe, require structural alterations in the factories. This will involve the producers in considerable expenditure to meet the regulations. What do the Government propose to do by way of compensation for these people for the expenditure to which they will be put to meet the regulations of the Common Market?

Finally, why do we have to end the clean-plucked bird trade by 1976? I understand that the plucked bird trade at Christmastime represents about 30 per cent. of the poultry trade with all those turkeys hanging up with their feathers on. and so on. Indeed, if my right hon. Friend shoots a brace of pheasants he hangs them up with their feathers on. I understand that that is what gives pheasants their special taste. If we have to take all the feathers off and hang these horried nude carcases around to meet some curious whim of the Common Market, we shall be denied, as with kippers, their very special taste. Why should we do this? Could we not have an Amendment to the Bill which will allow us to hang birds with their feathers on and have the proper taste of the kipper cured as we like it, not as some officials in the Common Market like it?

Mr. Deakins

It would be unfortunate if we were to allow this occasion and group of Amendments to pass merely having discussed food standards, which is only one of six or seven subjects which we are being asked to debate at the same time.

I thought that the Solicitor-General's reply was quite disgraceful, because only four hon. Members had spoken before he rose to reply. They all spoke on one subject, Amendment No. 111. Having boldly replied to the points raised on that Amendment, the Solicitor-General then had the cheek to say, "I invite the Committee to reject all these Amendments for the reasons given." I assure him that there is no connection between beef, poultry, pigmeat and the kippers about which he spoke so airily. This is typical of many of the hon. and learned Gentlemans' replies, or semi-replies, to debates on this important subject.

I wish to direct attention to the needs of the largest section of the largest industry in this country, the livestock industry, in relation to agriculture, and the two Amendments which deal with the regulations on beef and pigmeat. I hope that if we are to have a reply from the Government—I am not sure that we are—it will be an intelligible reply related to the important needs and interest of this important part of our largest and. in my view, most important industry.

Mr. Marten

Before the hon. Gentleman continues, perhaps we might have a statement from the Front Bench whether the Minister of Agriculture will reply to all these essentially agriculture points which have been raised and which are so important.

Mr. Deakins

We have no response, so I will proceed. Perhaps the Minister will make up his mind in the next five minutes or so as to what he wants to do.

I will start with beef and veal. The regulations which form the foundation of the common agricultural policy are singled out in the Amendment. Indeed, if the Committee were to pass the Amendment, it would show what it thinks of the CAP concerning this important section of the livestock industry.

It is not fully appreciated by producers that, apart from losing the system of guaranteed prices, we shall merely have a system of target prices for cattle and calves supported on a system of duties and levies. The important point, of which the farming community is not aware, is that whereas a guaranteed price is by and large the average price which the producer will obtain throughout the year, the target price is far short of that. Nevertheless, producers may look at the fact that target prices in the Community at £15.88 per cwt. in 1972–73 are 20 per cent. higher than the current guaranteed price of £13.2 per cwt. for fat cattle. But they would be ill advised to rub their hands in anticipation. A 20 per cent. increase in the end price is all very well, but they must consider the increased costs, particularly of feed, they will be facing. Since cereal prices are likely to rise between 25 and 30 per cent., depending on which part of the country the producer is situated in, that will take much of the gilt off that ginger bread.

Cattle producers will have to pay much higher prices for calves. One of the significant features of the meat trade in the Community is that it has a much bigger and stronger veal trade for young calves than we do. That must mean a higher raw material price. The position will be worsened for cattle producers if Ireland does not enter the Community at the same time as we do since our cattle producers draw a significant proportion of their store cattle from that country. There is a fair degree of uncertainly about the future of the production of calves, hill cows and hill sheep. We are continually assured by Common Market officials that everything in the garden is lovely and that our producers have nothing to fear. But, whatever may be the Community policy, these grants should not be ended until we have had some assurance, perhaps a physical assurance, that there will be replacements for them under a regional or agricultural policy of the Community.

Finally, I wish to refer to the question of price fluctuations in beef. I mentioned that target prices are not as good as guaranteed prices; but guaranteed prices are very much better in principle than a system of end prices based on market prices. I could have proved, but I do not have the time to do so, that market prices in this country fluctuate year by year much more than does the average return which the producer receives under the guaranteed price system. Therefore, when it comes to making investment decisions, the guaranteed price system is infinitely preferable to any end market price system.

The same goes for pig meat. Here again we find a Community system which does not give guaranteed prices and which involves very much higher feed costs. Whereas the proportion of what goes into fat cattle which is devoted to feedingstuffs is low, in pigs the cost of feed is very much higher. It is about 70 per cent. of the cost of producing the animal. Therefore, any increase in costs will have a significant impact on producers' end returns. When one compares the guide prices in the Community with our guaranteed prices for 1972–73, one sees that pig producers have not very much to look forward to in terms of a higher net end return. In fact, many of them are likely to be worse off. A system of market support by levies and intervention buying, unfortunately, is not likely to protect our producers from the fluctuations of the notorious pig cycle which, in Western Europe, is assuming the proportions of a continental pig cycle as distinct from a national pig cycle.

Our pig industry is much more intensive and specialised than any on the Continent because our producers have had the protection of guaranteed prices since 1947 and have been tempted and, indeed, encouraged to invest money on the basis of stable end returns. Their record in investment in better breeding, stock feeding, management and building techniques is second to none in Western Europe, if not in the world. The flexible guarantee arrangements, whatever may be said against them in criticism, have served a very useful purpose in ironing out the peaks and troughs in the pig cycle in this country and have brought much stability to this very important section of our agriculture industry.

My final point, since I know that the time is short, is merely to point to the position of the Pig Marketing Board in Northern Ireland, whose future must be uncertain in view of the Community's rules of competition and the special monopolistic position of the Board in Northern Ireland itself. If that position were to be removed the position of the pig and agricultural industries in Northern Ireland would be greatly jeopardised. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurance on this point as well.

12 midnight.

Mr. Alfred Morris

It is highly felicitous that my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) should have opened this important debate. She has a most distinguished parliamentary record in the subjects covered by the Amendments. All of us know of her sustained efforts to remove any and every factor likely to be injurious to human health. She is a fearless advocate of the consumer interest. She raised questions of consultation with consumers; she wanted, quite rightly, to improve representation of the consumer interest.

My hon. Friend asked for a new and top-level consumer committee to consider the problems we are discussing in this debate, among others. On behalf of the Opposition, I recently put it to the Minister that there should be a statutory consumer advisory service not only to advise him on food prices but also on quality and marketing. We were voted down in Standing Committee. He must, however, concede that quality, like prices and marketing, is a very important question for consumers.

he Committee knows that I hope we shall not do so, but if we enter the EEC the case for a statutory consumer advisory service becomes compelling. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew. West (Mr. Buchan) would want me to welcome the Minister back to the Committee. We regard it as extraordinary that he should not have intervened at any stage in any of our debates on agriculture in the Committee today. The Solicitor-General may be very good at word play, but what he had to say is no substitute for a statement from the responsible departmental Minister.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green argued, there is no nutritional value in the use of colours. When doubt has been expressed, all the experts can say is that they are not aware of any harm to the consumer. That is not a sufficient answer to the anxieties which have been voiced about possible hazards to human health. Some of the colours allowed by the Community are not permitted here. After the transitional period, are we to be obliged to accept colours now rejected in this country?

It may be argued by consumer organisations that we have not given nearly enough attention to these very sensitive requirements of Community membership. Certainly, no one can argue that we are being other than expeditious in our treatment of this group of Amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) argued, there are many implications in these directives, to which the Solicitor-General never even began to address himself.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) raised matters of deep interest, and the Minister of Agriculture ought to find an opportunity to reply. To most people all the directives will sound nothing if not mandatory. The Solicitor-General says that we can ignore the directives if we so wish. I hope he is not arguing that we should join the Common Market only to ignore its directives. Not to accept them is to detract from the purpose of joining the EEC. We all know that the Solicitor-General replies with care and politesse, but I am sure that he will concede that his reply was a poor substitute for a full statement on the implications of these directives.

The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) said earlier that he had not been able to do his homework as thoroughly as he could have wished. Even the merest piece of homework by the hon. Gentleman produces better results than the most studied preparation of his hon. and right hon. Friends. I am sure hon. Members would want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green on her preparation. The Solicitor-General did not seem sure that he should reject this group of Amendments, and I hope that the Patronage Secretary will agree that the Solicitor-General replied with great caution to the arguments adduced by my hon. Friends. The Solicitor-General seems to think that the EEC will be coming round to our view on at least one of these matters, but he did not give us the evidence for that. These are important Amendments and I ask the Solicitor-General to reconsider the arguments. He should have given us a much more constructive reply. If he cannot do so my hon. and right hon. Friends will divide the Committee.

The Chairman

The Question is, That the Amendment be made. As many as are of that opinion——

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I have been sitting here patiently expecting the Minister of Agriculture to reply——

The Chairman

Order. I am in the act of putting the Question. I thought the hon. Gentleman was rising to a point of order.

Mr. Lewis

No, I am sorry——

The Chairman

I am afraid that I am putting the Question.

Mr. Lewis

You have not put the Question, Sir Robert.

The Chairman

The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I was putting the Question.

Mr. Lewis

Before you put the Question, Sir Robert.

The Chairman

The Question is, That the Amendment be made. As many of as are of that opinion——

Mr. Lewis

Before you put the Question, Sir Robert.

The Chairman

—say "Aye".

Hon. Members


Mr. Lewis

Before you put the Question, Sir Robert. I am on my feet. I have not taken part in any of the debate. Before you put the Question I want to take part in the debate and, with respect, I would ask you to allow me to make just a few remarks.

The Chairman

The hon. Gentleman knows that if the Chairman starts to collect the voices it is usual to let him do so. I thought the hon. Gentleman was simply asking for the Solicitor-General to make some reply, which he did not seem prepared to do. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene in the debate he may do so.

Mr. Lewis

I did not mention the Solicitor-General at all, so you could not have heard my opening remarks, Sir Robert. I referred to the Minister of Agriculture. When I made my interjection earlier I noted that the Minister of Agriculture was not here the whole time, and I was told he was out at a dinner. I said that he had his priorities wrong and should have come here.

Now he has come here but he has not been here all day. He owes it to the Committee to make a few remarks in answer to my hon. Friends. I was going to ask the Minister of Agriculture to make some remarks about the points raised.

The Chairman

The Question is——

Mr. Shore

There is a substantial case for the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture to respond to the invitation which has been made to him by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.

The reason is that his right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General replied somewhat early in the course of the debate. We do not object to him so doing, but it happened that a number of quite different other matters were subsequently raised which did not fall within the scope of his reply and which concern basic matters of agricultural policy, particularly on products and food.

The Committee expects the right hon. Gentleman to respond to this invitation and will be keenly disappointed if he does not take this chance.

Mr. Jay

If the Minister of Agriculture refuses to respond to this request, will the Committee and the country not assume that he is unable to answer the questions? It seems important that he should answer, because we know he has taken on some work for the Conservative Party which no doubt occupies a certain proportion of his time, but he is paid by the taxpayer to carry out his public work as Minister and he has been invited to address the Committee for a few minutes.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior)

I understood that there was some agreement that this debate would be very short and that I should be doing a disservice if, at this stage, I intervened. I apologise to the Committee for not being here earlier. I heard the opening speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) early this afternoon and came back as quickly as I could, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State has been here all day.

I am rather flattered that hon. Gentlemen opposite should be so worried that I now have a second job, something to do with my party. I did not think that they would think it worthy of their interest, but if it has got under their skin that is all right.

If I may reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) who made a simple point about inspectors, poultry meat which flows in inter-Community trade will have to be inspected straight away, but poultry meat inspectors will have to be vets. We do not expect that there will be much trade in this to start with. We have sufficient weight of inspectors to do it until other inspectors have been trained, if there is more work as time goes on.

12.15 a.m.

On the question of unplucked poultry, which is of considerable importance to the industry, as things stand at the moment we shall have to cease this trade in 1976, but, of course, it is the case that there is a number of years in which to persuade the Community that this is an important trade for us and one which we shall wish to continue. I certainly give the undertaking to the Committee now that we have no intention of allowing a situation to arise where this trade cannot continue if by 1976 it is still important for us. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend on those two points.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) went into great detail about the abolition of guaranteed prices and the ending of the

flexible guarantees and the problem of the pig cycle, and so on. I think that I can say briefly to him that during the period of transition we are enabled to keep our guarantees for as long as we think they are necessary for the protection of our own industry, but I think it is true to say that the industry as a whole does not share the anxieties which he showed about the abolition of guaranteed prices and the introduction instead of target prices at considerably higher prices than the guarantees are at the moment.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) paid tribute to his hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), whose views we here always take extremely seriously. We pay tribute to the work she has done for consumer protection. She was answered in some detail by the Solicitor-General, but if there are any points which she feels were not dealt with adequately in the debate, if she will let me know, I will certainly have them looked at.

I think that, with that, the Committee might accept that it is time to get on.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 183, Noes 216.

Division No. 156.] AYES [12.17 a.m.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Deakins, Eric Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Armstrong, Ernest de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Hamling, William
Atkinson, Norman Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Hardy, Peter
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) Dempsey, James Harper, Joseph
Biffen, John Doig, Peter Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Dormand, J. D. Hattersley, Roy
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Booth, Albert Douglas-Mann, Bruce Heffer, Eric S.
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Duffy, A. E. P. Horam, John
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Eadie, Alex Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Huckfield, Leslie
Buchan, Norman Ellis, Tom Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) English, Michael Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Evans, Fred Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Ewing, Harry Hunter, Adam
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Farr, John Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Faulds, Andrew Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood) John, Brynmor
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Cohen, Stanley Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Coleman, Donald Foley, Maurice Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Conian, Bernard Foot, Michael Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Crawshaw, Richard Ford, Ben Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Forrester, John Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Fraser, John (Norwood) Judd, Frank
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) Gilbert, Dr. John Kaufman, Gerald
Dalyell, Tam Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) Kerr, Russell
Davidson, Arthur Golding, John Kinnock, Neil
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Grant, George (Morpeth) Lambie, David
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Lamond, James
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Latham, Arthur Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Skinner, Dennis
Leadbitter, Ted Murray, Ronald King Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Leonard, Dick Oakes, Gordon Spearing, Nigel
Lestor, Miss Joan O'Halloran, Michael Spriggs, Leslie
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold O'Malley, Brian Stallard, A. W.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Oram, Bert Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Lomas, Kenneth Orbach, Maurice Strang, Gavin
Loughlin, Charles Orme, Stanley Swain, Thomas
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Oswald, Thomas Taverne, Dick
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton) Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)
McBride, Neil Paget, R. T. Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery
McCartney, Hugh Palmer, Arthur Torney, Tom
McElhone, Frank Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
McGuire, Michael Pendry, Tom Urwin, T. W.
Mackenzie, Gregor Pentland, Norman Wainwright, Edwin
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
McNamara, J. Kevin Price, William (Rugby) Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Marquand, David Probert, Arthur Weitzman, David
Marsden, F. Rankin, John White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund Read, D. (Sedgefield) Whitehead, Phillip
Marten, Neil Richard, Ivor Whitlock, William
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Robertson, John (Paisley) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Meacher, Michael Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor) Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees) Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Mendelson, John Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mikardo, Ian Sandelson, Neville Woof, Robert
Miller, Dr. M. S. Short, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Milne, Edward Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen) Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.) Mr. James A. Dunn and
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Mr James Wellbeloved.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Sillars, James
Moyle, Roland
Adley, Robert Dykes, Hugh Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Eden, Sir John Hunt, John
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Iremonger, T. L.
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Jessel, Toby
Astor, John Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Atkins, Humphrey Eyre, Reginald Jopling, Michael
Awdry, Daniel Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Fidler, Michael Kershaw, Anthony
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Kimball, Marcus
Batsford, Brian Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Fookes, Miss Janet King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Fortescue, Tim Kinsey, J. R.
Berry, Hn. Anthony Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Kirk, Peter
Biggs-Davison, John Gardner, Edward Kitson, Timothy
Blaker, Peter Gibson-Watt, David Knox, David
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Langford-Holt, Sir John
Boscawen, Hn. Robert Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Bowden, Andrew Goodhew, Victor Le Merchant, Spencer
Braine, Sir Bernard Gorst, John Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Bray, Ronald Gower, Raymond Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Brinton, Sir Tatton Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Longden, Sir Gilbert
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Gray, Hamish Loveridge, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Green, Alan Luce, R. N.
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) MacArthur, Ian
Bryan, Paul Grylls, Michael McCrindle, R. A.
Burden, F. A. Gummer, Selwyn McLaren, Martin
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Hall, MissJoan (Keighley) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn) Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Carlisle, Mark Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) McNair-Wilson, Michael
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Hannam, John (Exeter) McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Chapman, Sydney Haselhurst, Alan Maddan, Martin
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Hastings, Stephen Madel, David
Churchill, W. S. Havers, Michael Mather, Carol
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Hawkins, Paul Maude, Angus
Clegg, Walter Hay, John Mawby, Ray
Cockeram, Eric Hayhoe, Barney Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Cooke, Robert Heseltine, Michael Meyer, Sir Anthony
Cooper, A. E. Hicks, Robert Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick Higgins, Terence L. Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Cormack, Patrick Hiley, Joseph Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Costain, A. P. Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Money, Ernle
Critchley, Julian Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Monks, Mrs. Connie
Crouch, David Holland, Philip Monro, Hector
Crowder, F. P. Holt, Miss Mary Montgomery, Fergus
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-Gen.James Hordern, Peter More, Jasper
Dean, Paul Hornby, Richard Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia Morrison, Charles
Dixon, Piers Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Murton, Oscar
Drayson, G. B.
Neave, Airey Ridsdale, Julian Trew, Peter
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey Tugendhat, Christopher
Normanton, Tom Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) van Straubenzee, W. R
Nott, John Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Onslow, Cranley Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Waddington, David
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Rost, Peter Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Scott, Nicholas Wall, Patrick
Page, Graham (Crosby) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Walters, Dennis
Page, John (Harrow, W.) Simeons, Charles Ward, Dame Irene
Parkinson, Cecil Skeet, T. H. H. Warren, Kenneth
Peel, John Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) White, Roger (Gravesend)
Percival, Ian Soref, Harold Wiggin, Jerry
Pike, Miss Mervyn Speed, Keith Wilkinson, John
Pink, R. Bonner Spence, John Winterton, Nicholas
Price, David (Eastleigh) Sproat, Iain Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L. Stanbrook, Ivor Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Proudfoot, Wilfred Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper) Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis Stokes, John Woodnutt, Mark
Raison, Timothy Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) Worsley, Marcus
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.) Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Redmond, Robert Tebbit, Norman Younger, Hn. George
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) Temple, John M.
Rees, Peter (Dover) Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) Mr. Bernard Weatherill and
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Tilney, John Mr. Marcus Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr Deakins

I beg to move Amendment No. 117, in page 2, line 26, after 'Treaties', insert 'except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as arise under the following regulations dealing with Oils and Fats, namely, Regulations Nos. 136/66, 174/66, 142/67, 143/67, 167/67, 171/67, 225/67, 282/67, 189/68, 190/68, 911/68, 1470/68, 154/69, 1486/69, 329/70, 499/70, 1253/70, 651/71, 1479/71, 1050/71, 1076/71, 1516/71, and 2114/71'.

The Chairman

I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee to take at the same time the following Amendments:

No. 107, in line 26, after 'Treaties', insert 'except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as arise under the following regulations relating to wine, namely, Regulation 24 of the European Economic Community dated 4th April 1962, Regulation 134 of the European Economic Community dated 25th October 1962, Regulations Nos. 816/70, 817/70,948/70, 957/70, 1021–70, 1093/70, 1388/70, 1698/70, 1699/70, 1700/70, 2005/70'.

No. 108, in line 26, after 'Treaties', insert 'except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as arise under the following regulations relating to flax and hemp, namely, Regulations Nos. 1308/70, 619/71, 630/71, 1172/71, and 1524/71'.

No. 109, in line 26, after 'Treaties', insert 'except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as arise under the following directives dealing with forestry, namely, Directives Nos. 66/404, 68/89, and 71/161'.

No. 112, in line 26, after 'Treaties', insert 'except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as arise under the following regulation dealing with cattle, namely, Regulation 1027/68'.

No. 342, in line 26, after 'Treaties insert 'except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as arise under the following regulations dealing with milk and milk products, namely, Regulations Nos. 804/68, 823/68, 876/68, 985/68, 1073/68, 1098/68, 1611/68, 685/69, 2683/70, 2115/71'.

No. 343, in line 26, after 'Treaties', insert 'except such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions as arise under the following regulations dealing with cereals namely, Regulations Nos. 120/67, 132/67, 139/67, 162/67, 1080/68, 2591/69'.

Mr. Deakins

This group of Amendments covers a wide range of subjects which will be of interest to various hon. Members and relates to a number of sections of agriculture. The Amendment which no doubt will be the subject of a Division is not necessarily the most important in the group since it deals with oils and fats, which are not necessarily the most important agricultural commodities produced and grown in this country. It is fair to say that the two important subjects are cereals and dairy products, and we are grateful to you, Sir Robert, for allowing the Amendments on those items to be taken with Amendment No. 117.

To start with Amendment No. 117 relating to oils and fats, we have selected this subject together with flax and hemp and forestry to illustrate the mania which has seized the bureaucracy in the Common Market, particularly in the agricultural section in Brussels, in having at all costs a common policy upon everything that stands on two or four legs and everything that grows in the ground. The bureaucracy feels that, having embarked on a common agricultural policy, that policy must cover every single growing thing that is capable of being eaten or produced in some form or another in terms of food for human consumption. Before the Committee decides whether to let Clause 2(1) go through, hon. Members should be aware of the regulations to which hon. Members on this side of the Committee take strong exception.

Amendment No. 117is significant because it relates to a volume concerning oils and fats which contains no fewer than 108 separate regulations on this relatively unimportant subject. The important point for agriculturists to note is that those 108 regulations are of recent origin. The first of them was promulgated only in September, 1966. This means an average of 20 regulations a year, and I have no doubt that the Commission is still churning them out. There is no doubt that in respect of oils and fats, flax and hemp and forestry the Commission is trying to ensure a common policy purely for the sake of it and without regard to whether anyone, consumers or producers, will benefit from it.

12.30 a.m.

A very complicated pricing structure is applied to oils and fats, and it may affect some producers in this country. There are no fewer than four different and disparate prices for oils and fats produced in the Community, and the same applies to oil seeds. Amidst this plethora of regulations, the important one is 136 of 1966 dealing with the common organisation of markets, and there are many others which allow intervention measures, export refunds, restitution payments, and so on. All of them are aimed at ensuring that the present Community producers of oil seeds and oil products will be encouraged at vast expense to the agriculture budget to increase production come what may. That production increase in the Community is at the expense of suppliers in the less developed countries. If this country enters the Common Market and accepts these regu- lations, we shall be tarred with the same brush in that we shall be encouraging the production of commodities which are grown cheaper in developing countries overseas, at the expense of the exports of those countries.

We have been told that it is impossible for the common agricultural policy to operate other than on a basis of end price. But oils and fats are the exception. Here is a system of deficiency payments and virtual guaranteed prices. It shows that when the Community is really up against it and finds that its normal common agricultural policy will not work, to encourage production it is forced to adopt the well tried and well loved British system of guaranteed prices.

I move on to Amendment No. 109. I have referred in passing to forestry. It is significant that the volume of forestry regulations contains only four. No doubt when Community foresty policy is fully established there will be many more.

Amendment No. 108 deals with flax and hemp. This again is an example of a Community policy where none is necessary—[Interruption]. This is no laughing matter. It is we who will have to bear the burden. The cost of subsidising these common policies will be met out of the money of British taxpayers. Therefore we have a right to protest about the adoption of common policies where such policies are unnecessary. That is certainly true of the matters dealt with in Amendment No. 108.

Reluctantly, because I am a wine lover, I miss out the Amendment dealing with wine. I feel that this is a subject on which hon. Members will have some knowledge even if they are not wine growers themselves.

I move on to cereals and dairy products. We have referred to cereals already in connection with the effect of higher prices both on production and on the cost of feeding stuffs in this country. The price increases are quite fantastic. The Common Market soft wheat target price for the current year is over £48 a ton delivered at Duisburg. Our guaranteed price is a mere £34.4 a ton. Clearly there will be a big increase for our producers, even allowing for the fact that Community prices will have to be reduced by the amount of the transport margin between the reception centre in this country and Duisburg, which is the base point for Community pricing.

The same is true of barley, an even more important crop for feedingstuffs. Our price is a paltry £32.2 a ton, compared with the Community target price of £44.64. It is significant that the production of barley in particular and soft wheat in the Community has expanded drastically under this marvellous regime of higher and higher prices. At the same time, it has had the effect not of making feedingstuffs cheaper to the Continental producers of livestock, but of ensuring that they continue to pay high prices. It has also had the great disadvantage of reducing American and other cereal imports into the Community, except as makeweight when the Community has a poor harvest.

Compared with that system, the British cereals system since 1947 has done a first-class job. The amount grown in this country has increased—and we all want to see the expansion of home agricultural production—and at the same time, because consumption has increased due to the growing livestock industry and the growing volume of wheat used in flour and so on, the percentage of total supplies from imports has remained virtually unchanged since 1953–54. Therefore, our policy has meant no damage to world agricultural trade.

It is a fact that if prices for cereals are too high, as in the Common Market, more production is encouraged. This will have a number of unfortunate consequences in this country. It will benefit cereal producers to begin with, because they will get more money, but it will be at the expense of traditional suppliers of cereals from overseas. It will also be at the expense of those who wish to maintain a farming economy in many parts of the country, because many farmers will be tempted, where climatic and geographical conditions allow, to plough up grassland for cereal production, and that could have repercussions on the production of livestock and above all on the production of milk and dairy products. Grassland for those purposes will be in competition with grassland for cereals in certain regions, and the incentive will be to plough them up for cereals.

A third unfortunate consequence is one of which all hon. Members are aware, because it is one of which we are becoming increasingly conscious in the House, namely, the aspect of conservation and pollution. We are seeing the continuous growing of cereals—for example in parts of East Anglia—year after year without any break crop. I know many farmers who have done this continuously since 1950 without doing themselves any harm. Nevertheless, it is a fact that this continuous growing will be at the expense of the land, and undoubtedly the increased use of chemical fertilisers will have deleterious long-term consequences for the fertility of that land. That is not to mention the pollution dangers from the run-off of these chemicals into rivers, with the consequent social costs involved thereby.

I conclude by turning to the last Amendment, which is concerned with milk. This is perhaps the most important Amendment from the point of view of a number of producers. There are not many cereal producers but there must be thousands of milk and milk products producers. By adopting the Community policy we shall find ourselves in a no-man's land, because we do not yet know whether the differences between our system and the Community system will be ironed out in favour of the Community system entirely. We do not know whether our emphasis on liquid milk will find long-term favour with the Community, whatever may be the short-term balance that we have arrived at for the transitional period. Furthermore, we have a daily delivery of milk to the doorstep, which people do not have in the Common Market. If we are to conform, will our distribution industry be able to continue with that service?

Then we come to the effect of the regulations mentioned in the Amendment on production, particulary on the production of winter as against summer milk, a matter which is of great concern to the Milk Marketing Board and milk producers. It is equally important to the consumer because it is likely that the higher cost of production in one part of the year will not be counter-balanced by lower costs in another.

At Question Time last week I queried the future function of the Milk Marketing Board, particularly in relation to the pooling of transport costs, which equalises the expense of getting milk to market between the various producers. This is a wonderful example of statutory co operation which should be put before the Common Market.

When I raised this matter on 18th April the Minister said that he wanted to reassure himself on the question before giving an answer. That answer has not yet been received. I hope it will be forthcoming and that it will be published for the benefit of all milk producers, because as time passes they will become increasingly concerned unless they are given an assurance about the Milk Marketing Board and its important marketing function.

Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke)

I am not certain why Amendment No. 107 appears on the Paper, although it is concerned with the regulations covering wine. However, I gather that it is a probing Amendment. Perhaps I should at the outset declare that I have an interest, of which hon. Members may be aware, in this subject.

I apologise for detaining the Committee at this late hour but I seek an assurance from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. The point I wish to raise has a considerable bearing on the price of French wine and therefore affects the wine trade, hoteliers, customers and the tourist trade. Article 30(2) of Part 41 of the European Communities secondary legislation, which deals with wine, says: Member States may subject the use of a geographical mark for describing a table wine to the condition, in particular, that that wine is obtained wholly from certain vine-producing areas expressly designated and that it comes exclusively from the territory marked out in an exact manner, whose name it bears. That is a protection against fraud and is a wholly desirable safeguard in the regulations. It is applied by each country.

However, the French apply it differently from the other wine-producing countries of the Continent. The French have introduced a system known as appellation controlée which is not a guarantee of authenticity but which permits the issue of permits or certificates for a limited quantity to be produced by each fine wine vineyard. Under this system one has a certificate or coupon for a certain quantity related to one's vineyard.

But nature does not oblige by producing the exact quantities stated on the certificate, and one may wonder what happens to the excess wine. In fact, in a French producer's cellar one may find perhaps 100 casks of wine, 10 of which do not have coupons attached. But it is all the same wine and inside the Common Market countries those 10 can be sold only as vin rouge at a lower price.

However, United Kingdom merchants are able to buy that wine for what it is and sell it for what it is in London at between £20 and £60 a cask less than the same wine would fetch if it had a coupon attached. The fact that this results in wine of this quality being between l0p and 25p a bottle cheaper will be of great interest to hon. Members who drink wine. It also goes a long way towards explaining why good wine is known to be cheaper in London than in Paris, with consequential advantage to the British consumer, the tourist trade and so on.

I seek an assurance that by accepting this part of the Bill we shall not bind ourselves to accepting the French system of appellation controlée applied to this country.


12.45 p.m.

Mr. Torney

I want to say a few words about wine following what has been said by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell). I pity the French, German and Italian wine industries if they have to assimilate the document which I now hold in my hand. It costs £5.50. The directives we seek to amend number 13. One of them runs to 35 pages, 44 articles, and three annexes. It will be amazing if they manage to make any wine at all once they have digested this.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) said that if we joint the Common Market we shall be subsidising the Common Market's agricultural policy. I believe that we shall be subsidising the Common Market countries' wine industries. Our own wine industry is very small. British table wine production is almost non-existent and is a struggling industry. Yet we must contribute to the Common Market's policy under this fantastic document. By the time the table wine and other wine industries have assimilated this stuff, they will be sunk and there will be little or no chance of their being able to carry on their businesses.

This is a glaring example of the waste and bureaucracy that those of us who oppose British entry into the Community abhor. I want assurances from the Minister about this document.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

On Amendment No. 343 in relation to cereals, there is concern in the country related to just how the new agricultural policy will work when we enter Europe. What sort of intervention authority does my right hon. Friend have in mind for operations in this country? Time is drawing on. People have made one suggestion after another. Is my right hon. Friend thinking of adapting the Home Grown Cereals Authority for this purpose? If so, does he intend to make that Authority a division of a larger intervention authority which will act for all sections of the industry?

Second, if we accept the Bill we shall enact a regulation which states that the centre upon which grain prices will be calculated will be Duisburg, Germany. I have no doubt that we have the intention at some time, if we have the enlarged Community of Ten, to change that centre. Duisburg may be all right for a Community of six nations. It is very different for a Community of Ten. If we go into Europe early next year, the industry should have an idea of how my right hon. Friend's mind is working on the nomination centre or the Duisburg equivalent in an enlarged Community. I have heard it suggested that Liverpool may be chosen as the point of least supply or that it may be somewhere in Wales. But can my right hon. Friend give some clarification about this?

My third point concerns everyone in this country who has an interest in milk. In response to Amendment No. 342 can my right hon. Friend reassure those who are worried about the position of the Milk Marketing Board if we go into Europe? The Board has done a first-class job and it has the confidence of the industry. I am sure that if it was inhibited or emasculated so as to curtail its powers considerably, they might view the prospects of Britain joining the EEC with a great deal more suspicion than they do at the moment. My three points reflect fears that are felt throughout the country.

Mr. Spearing

I wish to concentrate on Amendment No. 343 and the question of cereals. It is sad that in such a short time we should appear tonight to be tearing up the 1947 Act and reintroducing the Corn Laws which caused such a controversy over a century ago.

On cereals it is the specialised producer rather than the small man who will have the big advantage. The Common Market structure for agriculture attempts to balance the financial needs of the big specialised producer on the one hand with those of the small farmers that remain on the other hand. No one would object to any country in Europe trying to do that in its support structure. Some of my hon. Friends might agree with the philosophy of melanism, which I understand is prevalent there, because it might be that it is socially right for France. In cereals, however, this has some disadvantageous effects and it is to these that I wish to draw attention with some diffidence because of the late hour. Unless I do, I feel that the debate will be incomplete.

Our system gives reasonable prices to the consumer and a reasonable return to farmers, it encourages good husbandry and it supports a healthy rural economy. The scheme which would replace it does not do these four things at all. One of the major difficulties will be that the price structure in the enlarged Community will take account of climatic conditions which stretch from Sicily to the Hebrides. We shall be competing with cereal growers on the Continent in spite of the fact that we have more rainfall, less sunshine, lower temperatures and a growing season particularly suited to grass.

In other words, Britain is generally less suited to cereal production. The Minister shakes his head. I do not know whether he has been to agricultural college but if he is trying to say that Britain is better suited to cereal production than a high proportion of the Common Market there will be some very red faces in the Ministry of Agriculture. The cereal price increase of 30 per cent. will add to the surpluses.

In an item entitled "Background Briefing" to the book called "Green Europe", of 11th June, 1971, it was stated that Surpluses of soft wheat in the Common Market have been one of the main burdens on the EEC's farm support funds. But it is soft wheat that we grow in this country, despite the fact that we use hard wheat for our bread.

The competition we shall face will not only be in price. We already have uncertainty in the weather, always the farmer's enemy in this respect, and we are adding a greater uncertainty in the market. With those two uncertainties together, it is logical to say that there will be less certainty for the farmer by the very nature of the weather, the competition and the changed market.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) referred to the effect on the cost of milk products. In a previous debate the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made it clear that the cost of milk would not go up, even though the cost of feedingstuffs—imported, due to the levy, and fodder crops—will rise. This is because the increase will be met by butter and cheese increases. Although not necessarily affecting liquid milk, they will still be borne by the housewife.

Therefore, who gains? The farmer can hardly gain in the end, although he may have some short-term profits. The housewife will certainly not gain. In the end the country and its soil will be the biggest losers, because in their search for profits in the wider market, as they try to cope with the pressures of price on the one hand and weather on the other, farmers will almost inevitably be pressed into husbandry practices that will not be agreed by those best qualified to talk about the conservation of the land and the maintenance of soil stability and fertility.

My hon. Friend mentioned the position under our present scheme about which there is widespread concern in the country. But the position in a wider market economy will be much worse and will give cause for greater anxiety. If it were a situation in which we could replace a factory or change its location, that would be serious enough. But the soil is something which has been made by man over the centuries. It is something which cannot be replaced or doctored very easily, something unique in the economic factor of land. This has been completely misunderstood and under-estimated in the way in which we are to apply these cereal provisions in the Common Market.

I remind the Minister of Agriculture, who seems to think that this is not a serious point, that it was the market and the pressure of market forces in the North American cereal boom in the 1930s and before that produced such a distorted effect on farming in that country and brought into being the present agricultural surpluses of the United States, where there is yet another system, where people are paid not to grow crops. That is an intervention system quite different from ours. If we are to have an intervention system in agriculture at all—andI believe we should—it should be one that meets the needs of the citizens, the natural requirements of the land and the climate of the country in question. Unless we have such a system, the very roots of our civilisation and the very basis on which our town life is founded may crumble, and with it our civilisation.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Marten

When my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) mentioned the subject of wine, he got a cheer. I should like to mention a subject which falls within cereals, namely, hops, which are related not to the drinking of wine but to the drinking of beer. This is an important matter for this country because British beer has always been brewed from seeded hops. I understand that the Continentals like hops without seeds—the seedless variety, anyhow.

The certificate of origin section of the regulations proposes a maximum seed content of 2 per cent. Is this proposal fixed or is it still under discussion?

Seeded hops are intentionally fertilised by having one male plant to about 200 female plants in a hop garden. I understand that seedless hops undergo only such fertilisation as is caused by the hop plant existing in the wild and so contain far fewer seeds. The point is that seedless hops tend to give a lower yield per acre. It is not yet known whether seedless hops can be grown economically in the United Kingdom, and a reduction in yield could pose great problems for us.

I should like to know whether the certificate of origin regulation has come to a conclusion and whether we can have our traditional beer based on seeded hops, not on the Continental seedless hops.

Mr. English

I am grateful to the Chair for putting Amendment No. 262 back into this group of Amendments. Nevertheless I thought it an odd group, and it is rather strange that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should have to reply to an Amendment about tobacco.

The really strange thing is that the Common Market treats tobaccos as an agricultural product. I am aware that the tobacco plant has to be grown, but the Common Market is trying to protect its tobacco growers from those in other parts of the world who are far more efficient producers. The result is that the whole paraphernalia of norms, intervention systems, levies, export subsidies and so on is applied by these regulations to the growing of tobacco.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas (Huddersfield, West)

Will my hon. Friend tell me under what regulations, or whatever it might be, tobacco comes?

Mr. English

They are mentioned in the Amendment. The principal one is 727/70. The others follow upon that.

The Common Market protects its tobacco growers against far more efficient tobacco producers. The result will be to raise the prices of tobacco. [Hon. Members: "Good."] Hon. Members say "Good", but they should wait.

I should therefore like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a simple question. I realise that it is not really a question for him, but apparently he has the job of replying to the debate. Raising the price of tobacco, which plays so large a part in the ultimate price of the product, be it cigarettes or pipe tobacco, means that automatically the Exchequer's revenue must be reduced, because the ultimate retail price of tobacco products is already at an extreme point. Sales of tobacco products are governed almost entirely by decisions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the levels of taxation. If the price of the product is raised, the Exchequer's revenue is to some extent automatically reduced. What is the Government's estimate of the amount by which the Exchequer revenue will be reduced?

Other regulations of the Common Market permit, as is normally permitted in all European countries, the addition of substances other than tobacco to, for example, cigarettes. In this country a little sugared water can be added and that is about all. I know that many of my hon. Friends, particularly some of my medical colleagues, are concerned about the effect of cigarette smoking upon the health of the population. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller), who is deeply concerned about this matter, to consider what the effect is likely to be if combined with the tobacco are other additives which are permitted in Europe and forbidden by law in this country.

Dr. M. S. Miller (Glasgow, Kelvingrove)

Is my hon. Friend implying that there is a lower incidence of lung cancer and bronchitis on the Continent than there is in this country?

Mr. English

I am implying no such thing. I simply hope that my hon. Friend will consider the possible effects of smoking a cigarette which combines not merely tobacco, with all the disadvantages which my hon. Friend believes tobacco to have——

Dr. Miller


Mr. English

Knowing my hon. Friend's views, I ask him to consider the possible effect on people's lungs of smoking cigarettes which contain tobacco and other additives.

Lastly, I wish to refer to the effect of the requirement of the Treaty of Rome that indirect taxation should be equalised in the Common Market. The effect of this will be that our taxation system for tobacco and tobacco products will have to disappear. At the moment we tax the tobacco leaf. It comes out of bonded warehouses and is then subject to tax as it goes into the ultimate manufactured product. The Common Market does not have as good an administrative system. The Six, in effect, tax the packet of cigarettes rather than the amount of tobacco, which has various results. It causes a difference in the quantity of tobacco used in cigarettes and in the quality of the cigarettes.

I ask the Minister how far discussions have gone—because these matters are not yet finalised in the Common Market—between the Government and members of the Common Market on this subject because it is of vital importance to people in this country if the nature of the tobacco products they use is changed or the quality is reduced. It is also of vital importance to the Exchequer if its revenue is altered.

Mr. Michael Cocks (Bristol, South)

Can the Minister say what consultations took place between the Chancellor's negotiating team and the Secretary of State for Social Services about the effect of the Common Market tobacco regulations on the Secretary of State's policy? If we adopt the regulations as drafted, we shall seriously undermine the efforts which the Secretary of State has made regarding smoking in this country.

Figures published in the Financial Times today show that there has been a reduction in the amount of cigarette tobacco smoked in this country, largely due to the swing to filter cigarettes, which we all welcome for health reasons. Under the Common Market regulations, filter tip cigarettes will become much more expensive and there will be a strong financial incentive to smoke cheaper, coarser tobacco.

I should like to know what thought has been given to this problem. It exercises the minds of all of us. If we are to go into the Common Market to give, as we are told, a lead, this is one area where we should be leading and not trailing behind.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones

I rise because of the importance of the Milk Marketing Board to the county I represent. Carmarthen is the second largest dairy producing county, producing 60 million gallons of milk per annum and £8 million to the economy. There is great concern there about the future of the board, particularly in relation to two vital functions.

The first of these functions is the overall purchasing function of the board which it has had since 1947. This has been an immense contributory factor to the security and stability of the industry. The other function is transport. On 18th April, in reply to a parliamentary Question, the Minister wanted time to reassure himself about the answer. He has now had 10 days in which to consider and perhaps he can answer now. What is to be the future of the transport functions of the board?

The Padfield Report put in jeopardy the transport cost system of the board, which has played a major part in the security of the dairy industry in West Wales. The Padfield Report, indeed, put in jeopardy the national transport cost system. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) was Minister of Agriculture he disregarded, rightly in the opinion of many people—in the dairy industry in particular—the view of the report.

There is very great concern amongst the two farmers' unions in my constituency. The farmers' union of Wales, which completely supports entry into the EEC, is nevertheless voicing major concern about these two functions of the board and it is high time the right hon. Gentleman told the farmers of Britain, certainly in my part of the country, which is a major dairy producing area, what is to be the future of these two functions of the board which are crucial to the dairy industry.

Mr. Prior

If I had known what I was going to land myself in for earlier today, I am not sure that I should have come back to the Committee at all.

We have had a far-reaching debate which has turned itself almost entirely into a discussion of the many problems of agriculture, fertility of the soil and the climate we enjoy and a good many other things as well. I shall do my best, without trying to detain the Committee too long, to deal with the points which have been raised.

I remind the Committee that we are looking at these Amendments within the general framework of the common agricultural policy. It has been accepted by the Committee and by the Opposition that we had to come to terms with it. Everyone has to accept it. Having said that, and before I incur the wrath of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), I will deal with as many of the points raised in the debate as I can.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) was worried about whether we shall be able to import and consume non-appellation wines or whether, because the French are seeking to introduce appellation controlée, this would be prohibited to us. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. There is no requirement which would prevent us from importing and consuming non-appellation wines. The Community is working on draft rules for the designation and presentation of wines and we shall be fully consulted. It is a regulation that is causing the Community, or certain members of it, an enormous amount of trouble.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. David Mitchell

There are vast quantities of non-appelation controlée and cheap wine being imported in any case, and I was referring not to that but to the better wines. Does my right hon. Friend's answer apply to those too?

Mr. Prior

I know my hon. Friend is an expert and I would not claim to have the same degree of expertise. As I understand it, it does apply. I have no reason to think otherwise.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) raised the question of hops. He seems worried that we may have to introduce a regulation which will prevent us from using hops with seeds and that we would have to go to a seedless hop variety. This regulation is still under discussion but I think it is generally accepted by the hop growers and certainly by the brewing industry that there are certain qualities which seedless hops have and which are perhaps advantageous to the brewing process. It is likely that we would be moving towards a seedless hop anyhow in the next few years. The regulation is still under discussion.

The hon. Members for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) and Acton (Mr. Spearing) raised the problems of cereals and the Milk Marketing Board. The hon. Member for Acton was worried that the weather in the Common Market might not suit us too well. All I can say is that under a Tory Government in the last couple of years the weather has been considerably better than it was under a Labour Government. There is no reason to suppose that our cereal production will suffer in any way as a result of entry. In a large part of the country we produce cereals extremely efficiently. We have the highest yields of any of the European countries. While there will be an increase in cereal production I do not think it will be as much as we thought. There is a considerable swing back to grass in the country because of the value of livestock production and I would like to see it continue. It would certainly be part of the Government's policy to influence the Community to keep cereal prices down because we do not think it is in the interests of this country, the Community or of world trade for cereal prices to be at the high levels they have reached in the Community.

Dealing with the Milk Marketing Board, the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West asked me about the pooling of transport costs, a matter he raised at Question Time recently. I can give him the assurance he seeks. We would be free to make our own decisions about milk and the board would be able to ensure that it got the best possible return for its members. It would be able to pool its financial returns and remunerate its members as it wished. As to the price of milk, we expect that the price for liquid consumption will remain static. There is no reason on earth why we should not go on with the same methods of distribution. The actual cost of milk for the liquid milk market is unlikely to rise much, if at all. There will be some rise in the price for manufacturing milk because of the higher prices for butter, cheese and so on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) asked a number of important questions about the setting up of an intervention authority and about the system used for cereals. I will leave most of this until we come to Clause 6, when we shall obviously have a long discussion on this. We have asked the Home Grown Cereals Authority to act as our agents or for the intervention board when it is set up, and we are having further discussions with it. I shall try to give as much information as possible on cereals intervention policy when we come to Clause 6 because it is becoming a matter of some urgency for the farming and trading community interested in cereals.

I was asked some important questions by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) on the subject of tobacco. They both represent constituencies with important tobacco interests. As I see it now, there is nothing to suggest that tobacco prices might rise as a result of entry. We buy our tobacco from outside the Community. It is thought that we can continue to buy our tobacco from those sources. If there are detailed points on this which hon. Gentlemen would like me to look into, I will certainly see that that happens, but the regulations are unlikely to have direct effect on the price of tobacco imported into the United Kingdom and therefore on the retail price.

I have tried to cover the detailed points in some detail. If I have not done so and hon. Gentlemen will refresh my mind, I will see that they are fully informed on all outstanding points not answered.

Mr. Mark Hughes

After a series of replies by the Solicitor General and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, it is very refreshing to be given some information by the Minister. We welcome the reassurance about the Milk Marketing Board's powers. This reassures not only hon. Members on these benches but the milk industry in the country as a whole. I am sorry that the Minister could not give some reassurances about the monopolistic purchasing power of the board.

As regards tobacco, it is fair to say that although the Minister may have given some assurance about the rise in price, he gave no help on the matter of carcinogenic contents in possible EEC-regulated cigarettes or on the presence of adulterants in cigarettes. We hope

that very soon he will give some assurance on these important matters of public health, as he has been unable to do this evening.

This group of Amendments has been compendious, taking together items which could not be added to previously discussed groups. The Minister's decision that he will not tell us more about the rôle of the intervention authority, while understandable perhaps in terms of the structure of the Bill, will none the less be regretted by those involved in our cereals industry, but the disadvantage to us of the delay in the right hon. Gentleman's making an announcement is far out weighed by the disadvantage to the Home Grown Cereals Authority and it would have been far better had the right hon. Gentleman intimated his thoughts this morning rather than leaving that to some future date.

On the question of wines, despite the Minister's assurance, I am not satisfied on the point raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) about access to this country of appellation controlée wines. With the greatest deference to him, I am not sure that the Minister has got this right, as I understand the draft regulations, but clearly at this point in time it would be indecent to ask him to go into great detail about this matter.

In general, while appreciating the Minister's candour and the help he has given us, and the marked contrast between his efforts and those of some of his right hon. and hon. Friends in earlier debates, I am not satisfied and I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the Committee on this group of Amendments.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 172, Noes 211.

Division No. 157.] AYES [1.27 a.m
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Buchan, Norman Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Armstrong, Ernest Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Dalyell, Tam
Atkinson, Norman Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Davidson, Arthur
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Biffen, John Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Clark, David (Colne Valley) Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Booth, Albert Cohen, Stanley Deakins, Eric
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Coleman, Donald de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Conlan, Bernard Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Crawshaw, Richard Dempsey, James
Doig, Peter Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Paget, R. T.
Dormand, J. D. Judd, Frank Palmer, Arthur
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Kaufman, Gerald Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Kerr, Russell Pentland, Norman
Duffy, A. E. P. Kinnock, Neil Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Dunn, James A. Lambie, David Price, William (Rugby)
Eadie, Alex Lamond, James Probert, Arthur
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Latham, Arthur Richard, Ivor
Ellis, Tom Leadbitter, Ted Robertson, John (Paisley)
English, Michael Leonard, Dick Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Evans, Fred Lestor, Miss Joan Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Ewing, Harry Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood) Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Sandelson, Neville
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Lomas, Kenneth Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Loughlin, Charles Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Foley, Maurice Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Foot, Michael Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Sillars, James
Ford, Ben McBride, Neil Skinner, Dennis
Forrester, John McCartney, Hugh Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Fraser, John (Norwood) McElhone, Frank Spearing, Nigel
Gilbert, Dr. John McGuire, Michael Spriggs, Leslie
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) Mackenzie, Gregor Stallard, A. W.
Golding, John McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Grant, George (Morpeth) McNamara, J. Kevin Strang, Gavin
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Marquand, David Swain, Thomas
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Marsden, F. Taverne, Dick
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Marshall, Dr. Edmund Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Hamling, William Marten, Neil Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Hardy, Peter Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Meacher, Michael Torney, Tom
Hattersley, Boy Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Urwin, T. W.
Heffer, Eric S. Mendelson, John Wainwright, Edwin
Horam, John Mikardo, Ian Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Miller, Dr. M. S. Wellbeloved, James
Huckfield, Leslie Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen) Whitehead, Phillip
Hughes, Mark (Durham) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Whitlock, William
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Hunter, Adam Moyle, Roland Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Murray, Ronald King Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
John, Brynmor Oakes, Gordon Woof, Robert
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) O'Halloran, Michael
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) O'Malley, Brian TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Orbach, Maurice Mr. Joseph Harper and
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Orme, Stanley Mr. Tom Pendry.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Oswald, Thomas
Adley, Robert Clegg, Walter Green, Alan
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Cockeram, Eric Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Cooke, Robert Grylls, Michael
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Cooper, A. E. Gummer, Selwyn
Astor, John Corfield, Rt. Hn.Frederick Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Atkins, Humphrey Cormack, Patrick Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Awdry, Daniel Costain, A. P. Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Critchley, Julian Hannam, John (Exeter)
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord Crouch, David Haselhurst, Alan
Batsford, Brian d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James Hastings, Stephen
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Dean, Paul Havers, Michael
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Hawkins, Paul
Berry, Hn. Anthony Dixon, Piers Hayhoe, Barney
Biggs-Davison, John Drayson, G. B. Heseltine, Michael
Blaker, Peter Eden, Sir John Hicks, Robert
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Higgins, Terence L.
Boscawen, Hn. Robert Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Hiley, Joseph
Bowden, Andrew Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Braine, Sir Bernard Eyre, Reginald Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Bray, Ronald Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Holland, Philip
Brinton, Sir Tatton Fidler, Michael Holt, Miss Mary
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Hordern, Peter
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Hornby, Richard
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Fookes, Miss Janet Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Bryan, Paul Fortescue, Tim Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Burden, F. A. Gardner, Edward Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Gibson-Watt, David Hunt, John
Carlisle, Mark Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Iremonger, T. L.
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. James, David
Chapman, Sydney Goodhew, Victor Jessel, Toby
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Gorst, John Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Churchill, W. S. Gower, Raymond Jopling, Michael
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Kershaw, Anthony Morrison, Charles Spence, John
Kimball, Marcus Murton, Oscar Sproat, Iain
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Neave, Airey Stanbrook, Ivor
King, Tom (Bridgwater) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Kinsey, J. R. Normanton, Tom Stokes, John
Kirk, Peter Nott, John Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Kitson, Timothy Onslow, Cranley Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Knox, David Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Tebbit, Norman
Langford-Holt, Sir John Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Temple, John M.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Page, Graham (Crosby) Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Le Marchant, Spencer Page, John (Harrow, W.) Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Parkinson, Cecil Tilney, John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Peel, John Trew, Peter
Longden, Sir Gilbert Percival, Ian Tugendhat, Christopher
Loveridge, John Pike, Miss Mervyn van Straubenzee, W. R.
Luce, R. N. Pink, R. Bonner Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
MacArthur, Ian Price, David (Eastleigh) Waddington, David
McCrindle, R. A Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L. Walder, David (Clitheroe)
McLaren, Martin Proudfoot, Wilfred Wall, Patrick
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis Walters, Dennis
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham) Raison, Timothy Ward, Dame Irene
McNair-Wilson, Michael Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Warren, Kenneth
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) Redmond, Robert Weatherill, Bernard
Maddan, Martin Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) White, Roger (Gravesend)
Madel, David Rees, Peter (Dover) Wiggin, Jerry
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Wilkinson, John
Mather, Carol Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Winterton, Nicholas
Maude, Angus Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mawby, Ray Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Mills, Peter (Torrington) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Woodnutt, Mark
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W) Rost, Peter Worsley, Marcus
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Scott, Nicholas Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Money, Ernle Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Younger, Hn. George
Monks, Mrs. Connie Simeons, Charles
Monro, Hector Skeet, T. H. H. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Montgomery, Fergus Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) Mr. Marcus Fox and
More, Jasper Soref, Harold Mr. Hamish Gray.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Speed, Keith

Question accordingly negatived. To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Rippon.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

Forward to