§ Mr. John D. GrantI beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 4, line 37, leave out "from time to time".
I shall be very brief indeed. Quite simply, this comes back to the real feeling, among some of us at any rate, that there is a totally inadequate method of control over what is, after all, a substantial item of public expenditure.
The vague phraseology of the Clause which talks about reports from time to time, the first not later than 1982, and so on, gives cause for disquiet, as does the reference to reports being made at 10-yearly intervals. We regard that as insufficient for an examination of the situation.
I return .to the sensible suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), that there should be a new Department to scrutinise these matters. The Chancellor indicated that he had an open mind on this for the future, and I think that we can at least welcome that as something of a concession.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that the Clause generally furthers what has really 554 been the Government's aim throughout the exercise, and that is to sustain privilege whatever the cost, and to try to keep the whole of the Royal set-up shrouded in as much mystery and mystique as is possible in 1972. The concessions to so-called open Government as provided by the Bill are something of a mockery, and the Clause illustrates that very well indeed.
§ Dr. GlynI respect the view of the hon. Member for Islington East (Mr. John D. Grant), but take the opposite view. This matter should not come up for continual review. I have a great deal of sympathy for the very sensible suggestion made to the Committee by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). All hereditary revenues should revert to the Sovereign, and that money should be used to sustain all members of the Royal Family in so far as it applies to the official duties which are carried out by them. This would entail a one-line Clause abrogating the 1952 Act and giving back the Royal revenue to the Sovereign, thereby avoiding in future these acrimonious discussions about how much she should receive
It would therefore be left to the Sovereign to decide, and the whole matter would be accountable to the Treasury. The money would be used to sustain the Monarchy and its members. These are large sums—between £5 million and £9 million a year—but a system of accounting to the Chancellor could easily have 555 been established covering only those amounts which could legitimately be accounted for. That is why I have the utmost sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. I would have gone a stage further to ensure that the Monarchy had the funds derived from its legal entitlement, which hitherto have been surrendered voluntarily at the beginning of each reign in exchange for the Civil List.
§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin)It is not easy but so far as one can tell the object of the Amendments is more frequent reports on the state of the Civil List. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn) wants less frequent reports and no further scrutiny by Parliament at all. He mentioned the suggestion that the revenues of the Crown Estates should again revert to the Crown and be available to pay the various annuities and other expenses which at present fall on the Civil List.
I was not a member of the Select Committee but I have read the report and the evidence and I can assure my hon. Friend that a similar proposal was fully discussed. It was championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). It did not find favour with the Committee but it was seriously considered. For that reason, it would not be right for me to hold out any hope that this is an appropriate way of dealing with the problem.
I said that it was difficult to know exactly what the Amendments are intended to do. They refer to bi-annual reports and also reports at intervals of no more than four years. I do not know which is intended but both are substantially less than the 10 years provided for in the Bill. On that account I must ask the House to resist the Amendment. I do so again with the support of the Select Committee, not only because it recommended ten years but because it considered and rejected more frequent reports.
On pages lxxv and lxxvi, a proposal for a quinquennial review and report, twice as often as was finally decided, was proposed by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) but was rejected by eight votes to one. Once again I am entitled to ask the Committee to resist 556 the Amendment, not only because it conflicts with the recommendations of the Select Committee but also because the Select Committee indicated by that vote that 10 years was appropriate.
I said on Second Reading that one of the novelties in the Bill is the provision for a review. Until recent decades a Civil List has been intended to last for the whole of a reign, but it has become apparent that more rapid levels of inflation make this no longer feasible. Of course, in the last resort it is a question of judgment. A later Amendment suggests a different form, but the Bill provides for a report by the Royal Trustees and its consideration by the Government and an opportunity, if the Government so decide—the Government have a discretion—to alter the sums by Statutory Instrument which would be debatable in the normal way.
This is a novel procedure, which has been fairly widely welcomed as a sensible compromise between the dangers of too frequently pulling up the system to look at the roots and the risks that the sums provided would, after 20 years, become inadequate—as in the present case—and have to be reviewed in the middle of a reign.
I hope that, having heard the arguments, the hon. Member will not press the Amendment. If he does, I must ask the Committee to reject it.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.