HC Deb 28 April 1993 vol 223 cc1052-72

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 9, line 16, at end insert 'and held in the Distribution Fund for that purpose'. —[Mr. Key]

Mr. Pendry

I beg to move amendment No. 90, in page 9, line 18, leave out '20' and insert '25'.

Madam Speaker

I understand that it is convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 91, in page 9, line 20, leave out '20' and insert '25'.

No. 92, in page 9, line 22, leave out '20' and insert '25'.

No. 93, in page 9, line 24, leave out '20' and insert '25'.

No. 94, in page 9, line 24, leave out from 'expenditure' to end of line 26.

No 95, in page 9, line 24, at end insert— '(4) Until the year 2000, of each allocation specified in section 20, 5 per cent. shall be spent on projects approved by the Millennium Commission established under section 36 to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium.'.

Mr. Pendry

I must say that, from the beginning, I have had difficulty with the concept of the millennium fund. According to the White Paper "A National Lottery: Raising Money for Good Causes", published last March, national lottery proceeds would benefit arts, sport, heritage and charities". It was last year's Conservative party manifesto that introduced the fifth beneficiary, the millennium fund. How does the manifesto describe the purpose of the fund? It says that it will be used for projects to commemorate the start of the twenty first century and will be enjoyed by future generations. I consider that a pretty vague and unsatisfactory description of the aim of a fund that will receive 20 per cent. of net proceeds. We hoped that the Minister would further clarify the Government's thinking on the fund in response to probing in Committee. However, after the Committee stage, we are left with no clear idea of how eligibility for the fund might be determined.

9.45 pm

The Conservative party manifesto last year provided a list of undoubtedly worthy projects which could receive millennium fund money. They include restoring historic buildings, improving amenities of canals and rivers and bursary schemes for volunteers. However, that list makes me more dubious than ever about the worth of establishing a separate millennium fund with separate bureaucracy to administer it.

All the projects that I mentioned would surely be eligible for funding as the main beneficiaries of the lottery —arts, sport, heritage and charities. So why set up a separate and expensive bureaucracy funded from the lottery proceeds, thus reducing the total amount available for good causes, to make decisions better made by the four specialist distribution bodies?

One of the only projects mentioned in the Conservative manifesto which would not be eligible for funding for the arts, sport, heritage and charities is an international trade fair. I shall deal with another one in a moment. I know that industry in Britain is in the grip of recession, but does the Minister really believe that an international trade fair is a good cause which should be funded from lottery revenues?

The list of projects set out in the manifesto also gives rise to a more important query. I address this point to the Secretary of State. The manifesto suggested that the Manchester bid for the Olympics could receive funding. Yet that is a scheme in the pipeline and not, in our view, one which should be eligible for public support. How can the Government claim that they want to safeguard the additionality of lottery funds and then announce that a project such as the Manchester bid for the Olympics could be funded from lottery proceeds?

Opposition Members are as anxious as anyone to see the Manchester Olympic bid succeed. I have a sports portfolio and a Greater Manchester constituency, so I am as anxious as anyone to see it succeed. But the funding should be provided by the Government. They secured a high profile by acclaiming Manchester's previous unsuccessful bid when the games went to Atlanta. Chris Patten, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, gave an assurance that adequate public funding would be made available if Manchester's bid was successful. That should be the case with the current bid.

More importantly, in the context of the Bill, the Government's suggestion that the Manchester bid could receive national lottery funding highlights the Government's inconsistency on additionality. The Government's position in the Second Reading debate was clearly stated by the Secretary of State. He said: I am excited by the potential of the millenium fund. It offers a scope for making real improvements to the face of the United Kingdom. Because it will be funded out of a new income stream, which will not count as public expenditure, the projects that we will be able to take forward will be additional to those already planned and in prospect. This will apply to the private sector as well as the public sector, for I envisage that the main large-scale projects will involve funding partnerships with the private sector."—[Official Report, 25 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 728.] The Opposition concur with those remarks.

However, it would appear that Ministers, including the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister no less, are not ruling out funding from the millenium fund some of the planned projects already submitted to the International Olympic Committee in the official bid document. Clearly, that is a breach of the Government's stated aim on additionality spelt out by the Secretary of State on Second Reading. I have here documents on some of the plans that are already in the pipeline. Therefore, I ask the Minister to deal with that specific and important point.

The Bill creates three new bodies—Oflot, the National Lottery Charities Board and the Millennium Commission. We acknowledge the need for a lottery regulator and for a new board to distribute funding to charities, as recommended by both the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Association of Charitable Foundations in reports on the distribution of lottery proceeds.

We do not object to setting of the Millennium Commission to assist in decision-making. However, we object to the creation of an unnecessarily large bureaucracy. As the Bill is currently drafted, the Millennium Commission will employ staff who will take decisions on projects which may be considered by the other four distributory bodies—the Arts Council, the Sports Council, the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the National Lottery Charities Board.

May not the Minister be setting up a body which simply duplicates the work of those institutions in relation to lottery funding? Has he also considered that a further difficulty will arise because staff of the commission will not have the same expert knowledge as those employed by those institutions necessary to decide what counts as a good arts or sport project? A project could meet whatever criteria are set by the commission to receive funding, but I am at a loss if I try to speculate on just what specific criteria might be set for millennium projects. Experts in a particular sector may still consider that such projects are not of sufficient quality to be funded.

The Opposition are not killjoys. We like the idea of grants to celebrate something, even something as nebulous as the start of the next millennium. Therefore, we do not oppose the idea of the Millennium Commission, which would approve millennium project applications. We believe that it would be prudent, however, if those funding decisions were made in partnership with the specialist bodies that distribute the lottery money to the arts, sport, heritage and charities. We believe that the millennium fund should be excluded from the Bill and that the allocations to the arts, sport, heritage and charities should be increased from 20 to 25 per cent. of net proceeds.

We believe that 5 per cent. of each beneficiary allocation should be ring-fenced for millennium fund projects. Each distributory body would submit a programme or projects to the Millennium Commission, which would approve the spending of that ring-fenced 5 per cent.

Would it not give the Minister a warm glow to be able to increase the amount that will go direct to charities and other good causes at so little cost to himself? He must be only too well aware that, with a taxation rate of 12 per cent. on lottery proceeds, lottery beneficiaries are disappointed about their share. Who knows what that percentage will be after the first year of operation?

If the Minister were to accept the principle of the amendments, which represent a sensible modification to the Bill, it would increase the amount of money going direct to the distributive bodies for the arts, sport, heritage and charities. That would be partial compensation for them for the fact that they must pay a higher level of taxation.

The proposal would mean minimal staff costs for the commission and would therefore mean that more money was in the fund to be distributed to good causes. It would also mean that the decision taken would be more likely to be sound, since projects would be referred to the commission by experts in a particular sector.

When we discussed this issue in Committee, the Minister suggested that the system proposed would result in the creation of more bureaucracy and that those seeking millennium funds would need to go, cap in hand, to eight bodies. That reveals a lack of understanding of what we are proposing. Our suggestion would result in a reduction in bureaucracy. It would mean that organisations in the arts, sport, heritage and charities would apply to one body responsible for funding rather than to two.

The Minister raised a further difficulty about the distributive bodies being restricted as to the areas of activity that could be funded through millennium resources. It was suggested that the proposal would make it more difficult to make imaginative decisions. If that is so, surely there are other ways round it than through the creation of a large bureaucracy.

I hope that the Minister will think again about the millennium projects about to be funded and will look closely at the constructive approach offered by the amendment.

Mr. Alan Howarth

I do not agree with the Opposition proposal that the millennium fund should no longer be one of the beneficiaries of the money raised through the national lottery. I believe in the millennium fund and I believe that it will be possible to do some exciting, important things as a result of it which would not otherwise be done. I am sure that we should resist the amendment.

We are faced with a problem, however, because I am concerned that too small a proportion of the resources of the lottery will go to good causes. After all, the object of that lottery is, overridingly, to benefit such good causes.

If one breaks down the call on the proceeds, it appears that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor intends to take 12 per cent. in tax; the Government have said that they expect 50 per cent. to go on prizes and my hon. Friend the Minister has said that he expects administrative and operational costs to range between 8 and 18 per cent.—an average of 13 per cent. That leaves only about 25 per cent. of the turnover of the lottery for good causes.

That must be divided five ways if the millennium fund is to remain among the beneficiaries. That in turn means that only 5 per cent. of the turnover of the lottery will go to charities and in most people's perception, "good causes" means charities. It is, sadly, a small proportion for good causes and particularly for charities. Then we must take into account the displacement of charitable giving which we are apprehensive that the national lottery will induce, and we are all aware that additionality is not quite cast-iron.

My hon. Friend is the Minister of pastime and pleasure and I have no desire to be a killjoy, but I find it difficult to see how the Government can justify diversion of money within our society on this enormous scale, with all this immense activity and the profits of the operators, unless a higher proportion of the money involved goes to good causes. A year ago, the White Paper suggested that one third of the money from the lottery would go to good causes.

The Labour party proposes to address this problem by cutting out the millennium fund. I do not agree with that. There are two other ways which we could consider and which would be preferable. We could look at prizes. I understand the need to have substantial prizes—if we do not have them, the whole soufflé may collapse—but we face a dilemma. Huge prizes will increase the likelihood that charitable giving will be displaced. I am unhappy about that, because, instead of people giving 100 per cent. of their donation to charity, they will buy a lottery ticket and, at the end of the process, only 5 per cent. will go to the charity. In that sense, it is a very poor deal for charities.

What I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends will be prepared to reconsider is the question of rollover. If we are to have rollover, as the Government seem determined we should, we will be looking at rollover jackpot prizes of the order of £20 million. I have seen persuasive calculations to suggest that that will be so; it could well be more. In Ireland, the average spend per head on the lottery is £72. In the United States it is $110, which is almost exactly the same. If we assume a greater native caution in this country and contemplate the possibility that expenditure will be £50 per head, the computations indicate that rollover jackpots could be as large as £40 million.

I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to think very carefully about what they would be doing in creating such a situation. The lure of such great prizes may provoke people's fantasies and they may flock to buy tickets, but a considerable number of our compatriots may say that there is something rather indecent about prizes on this scale and about huge sums of money being gambled in a scheme not only authorised but created by the Government. They may look at the pockets of poverty that remain in our society, even after all the enormous social progress achieved by the Government, and at the other problems in society, and ask whether it is right that such huge sums should be absorbed in a national lottery.

It is my belief that the scale of pools prizes has in the past been enough and that the national lottery could prosper sufficiently on the basis of smaller prizes and without rollover. My hon. Friend the Minister earlier in the evening said emphatically that this is not the United States of America. Quite so. We need not emulate the United States in this respect. We do not need the $118 million jackpot that the state lottery of California has created or the $106 million jackpot of Florida. The national lottery here is overridingly for good causes, and I should be happy to see a smaller proportion of its turnover go on prizes and more on good causes.

I appreciate that prizes must be attractive, but we should not overdo it. I would he happy to contemplate a smaller turnover and a higher proportion of that turnover going to good causes, if that were necessary. The object should be not to maximise the total take of the lottery, but to maximise the amount that goes to good causes. So I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider the question of rollover.

We could use another angle of attack to deal with the problem that the amendment seeks to tackle: how to increase the proportion that goes to good causes. We can look at the tax treatment of the lottery. I suggest the Minister encourage the Chancellor to adjust his approach to taxing winnings instead of what he proposes to do.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) , That, at this day's sitting, the National Lottery etc. Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.— [Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Howarth

In the United States of America, the tax on winnings is often as high as 30 per cent. The public there seem to accept that, even though the culture does not favour high taxes. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor sought to justify the 12 per cent. rate on the basis that it would compensate the Treasury for income lost on account of the national lottery.

I was surprised by this proposition and I should be interested to know my right hon. Friend's evidence for it. It would be helpful if he revealed it. Surely the national lottery will generate additional revenue for the Exchequer, especially downstream tax revenues based on construction activity and a host of other activities that will be generated —even administrative and operational activities associated with the lottery will yield resources for the Exchequer: income tax paid by national lottery employees, VAT on purchases and so on.

I therefore anticipate that the revenue that the Chancellor will receive, generated by the lottery, will be significantly more than the 12 per cent. figure that he gave us. He will probably take in tax from the national lottery three or four times the amount that will go to charities.

Public expenditure is no doubt a good cause, at least in nearly every instance, but I submit that the public may take it amiss if they begin to perceive the national lottery as disguised extra taxation. The real good causes should not be an obscure residual, the poor relations to the Exchequer in the competititon for funds from the lottery. Ultimately, society's evaluation of the national lottery and the Government's policies in this regard will be based on its effect on good causes.

If Ministers are not prepared to write into the Bill the commitment that I have sought in an unselected amendment, that 35 per cent. of the turnover from the lottery should go to good causes, will they at least undertake to write that into the contract with the operator? Although I oppose the Opposition amendment, which would remove the millennium fund from the ranks of the beneficiaries, as a means of ensuring that enough can go to charities, the arts, sport and heritage, I ask Ministers to look again at this problem.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves

I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) on this issue. He has said, in much the same vein as many of his colleagues in the Committee said, that it is desirable to try to ensure that between 30 and 35 per cent. of the total take goes to good causes. We discussed this subject at some length in Committee, so it is not worth detaining the House further, except to say that I am confident that the Minister has realised that Conservative as well as Opposition Members want a larger take for good causes.

I would only ask the Minister to assure the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) that the very purpose of the arm's-length commission for the millennium fund is to ensure its independence. I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Key

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) for his contribution. The Millennium Commission is an arm's-length organisation and I am glad that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to that. I should like to think carefully about the wide-ranging speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). However, I can say at once that I shall have to disappoint him in terms of writing a 35 per cent. figure into any contract, let alone into the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office has said that the Government will produce proposals on rollover. They will be considered in another place.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) asked me to address the issue of Manchester's bid for the Olympics. The Millennium Commission is an independent body and will make its own decisions in the light of the quality of the applications it receives. There is no possibility of the Government allocating any money for a specific project, whether a facility for the Manchester Olympics or anything else. Legitimate applications for funding from the Millennium Commission will be judged by the commission, on which Ministers would be in a small minority. The hon. Member for Stalybride and Hyde will recall that I conceded that in Committee.

A substantial amount of public money is already committed to Manchester's bid. When Manchester wins —hon. Members representing Manchester constituencies are in no doubt about that—there will be substantially more money. Perhaps one of the special or one-off projects for the Manchester games in the year 2000 would be appropriate for an application. It will not be in my gift to say whether it will succeed. The arguments in Committee about additionality and the Manchester games were thorough and I have nothing to add to them.

The amendments seek fundamentally to alter a key provision in the Bill to establish a commission to mark the beginning of the third millennium and the year 2000. Far from having a rosy cheek if I accepted the amendment, I would undoubtedly have a blush of shame at deserting an important national lottery objective, which is to find an appropriate way to mark the new millennium for the nation.

The Bill as drafted establishes an independent commission, appointed by the Queen and free to make its own decisions on spending from a discrete pot of money that will form 20 per cent. of the lottery proceeds until the end of the year 2000. There is provision to extend the amount of time during which money will flow into the funds in order to allow funding to continue for projects that overrun. This is clearly prudent and it is not, I hasten to add, an invitation to profligacy. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that a half-finished millennium project which no funding could be found to finish would be regarded less as a memorial to the achievements of the previous millennium than a monument to folly and the short-sightedness of the House.

I have been at pains to point out that the United Kingdom national lottery and the benefits accruing from it should be set in the context of a vision of improved quality of life for the whole nation. The amendments seek to blinker some of that vision and to change the character of the Millennium Commission and of the Bill as a whole.

The provisions are also impractical. We envisage that millennium projects should consist of a small number of large projects and a larger number of small projects, which might be of local significance, as well as bursaries, which might be for people from particular walks of life to undertake work within the United Kingdom on projects that will enhance their contribution to the community on its completion. However, exactly how the money is used will be a matter for the commissioners themselves. They will take a bold, forward-looking approach to their task, and it is important that they they have discretion in this area.

I have already said that they will fund a small number of large projects. They need access to reasonably large funds to do this, and a reasonably free canvas on which to work. Going cap in hand to eight or more bodies for money to spend and being constrained over areas to work within will not make for imaginative decision making. If the bodies were tardy in releasing funds, a mechanism to require them to do so would be necessary. There might be a need for appeal machinery and so on. We should be creating a bureaucratic framework for what is a simple process, already effectively provided for in the Bill as drafted.

I regret that I cannot agree to the amendments. They are outside the spirit and vision of the Bill and would fundamentally alter its purpose. I am not willing to accede to that.

Mr. Pendry

That was a disappointing reply. My hon. Friends have told me that the Minister was saying no. He missed the point about what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading on the Manchester Olympics bid, which was that no lottery money would go into the planned projects. That will not be the case. The matter will run and run—but not now, as it is obvious that the House wishes to make progress. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Corbett

I beg to move amendment No. 102, in page 9, line 19, at end insert 'including films,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient also to discuss the following amendments: No. 119, in page 9, line 19, at end insert— 'including films, for which purpose monies shall be allocated to the British Film Institute and the National Film Corporation.'.

No. 120, in page 9, line 25, leave out '20' and insert '5'.

No. 121, in page 9, line 26, at end insert; 'and

No. 104, in page 9, line 28, clause 21, after 'arts', insert 'and film'.

No. 193, in page 9, line 29, leave out '97/' and insert '82/'.

No. 103, in page 9, line 30, after 'Britain', insert' who shall distribute such proportion as they think appropriate for the purposes of film'.

No. 122, in page 9, line 30, after 'Britain', insert 'who shall distribute such proportion as they think appropriate for the purposes of film between the British Film Institute and the National Film Corporation'.

No. 198, in page 9, line 30, after 'Britain', insert 'who shall distribute not less than 15 per cent. for the purposes of film to the British Film Institute'.

No. 194, in page 9, line 30, after 'Britain', insert— '(aa) as to 15 per cent. for distribution by a sub-committee of the Arts Council of Great Britain, for expenditure on or connected with film, and'.

Mr. Corbett

The amendments bring us to the British film industry. The House will recall that we could hear the cheers down Whitehall when the Secretary of State expressed his delight at the six Oscars that British entries took at last month's awards and then claimed that that demonstrated that Britain was "a centre of excellence" for cinema film production. It is true that we have excellent writers, producers and directors, but they work mainly for foreign earnings in foreign lands. The film industry is in crisis.

Mr. Key

Nonsense.

Mr. Corbett

I hope that the Under-Secretary will listen to the facts behind that assertion.

Last year, just one big feature film, "City of Joy", was made here. As to the Oscars, most of the cash for "Howards End" and "The Crying Game" came from abroad, with British contributions limited to welcome slices from Channel 4. There is nothing the matter with that. I am not complaining. I am asserting that we do not do enough to ensure that more films are made in Britain, whether by British producers, writers and directors or anyone else. Fewer and fewer genuinely British films are being made by the cinema. Only 15 cinema films were made last year by British production companies. Some 59 films were shot, but most were low-budget, partly financed by television and consequently with limited cinema potential.

As Derek Malcolm, the distinguished film correspondent of The Guardian commented after the Oscar awards: If we do well"— that is, the British film industry— the government suggests that we don't need assistance. If we don't, the government complains that we hardly deserve support. That is about the length of it.

Although we welcome the round of talks about the future of the film industry on which the Secretary of State has embarked, we want that talking followed by action. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition told the Prime Minister: our film industry could be even more succesful if it received the same backing and support from Government as do its competitors in other countries". By that, he meant capital allowances and tax breaks that many, if not most, other European countries offer to those making films.

The Prime Minister's response was somewhat mean-spirited. He said: Once again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman equates real encouragement with the spending in subsidy of taxpayers' money".—[Official Report, 30 March 1993; Vol. 122, c. 152.] No one is asking for subsidy in that sense. Alongside what the Government decide separately to do, the amendments are designed to ensure that our film industry, especially its independent sector in production, distribution and exhibition, gets a proper share of the cash available for the arts from the national lottery.

When that matter was debated, the Under-Secretary of State said that a special Arts Council committee, including film industry representatives, would be established to deal with the allocation of money from the lottery. He undertook to reconsider the arrangements for distribution to film but alas, despite talks with the British Film Institute and other bodies, no changes were proposed.

10.15 pm

The present arrangements are not believed to be sufficient. The Arts Council remit on film, as the Under-Secretary of State well knows, is very narrow and confined to activities relating to avant garde films and documentaries about artists. Of course those have their place, but the arrangements do not begin to address the problem confronting the British film industry. In any event, the Arts Council is far detached from the industry.

The BFI argues that there is a need to assess how the development of film and video should proceed across the whole country and to back that with lottery distribution. It adds: If the present proposal is maintained, we fear that film will continue to be treated as the poor relation within the national funding system. The amendments seek, on behalf of the BFI, to establish a separate film committee of the Arts Council's lottery committee, so that people with expertise and knowledge of the industry can help direct where lottery moneys can best be spent to support it. That sub-committee should examine applications for funding relating to film and video and make recommendations to the Arts Council's main lottery committee. The Minister will be aware that such an arrangement does not fully meet the film industry's wishes, but it does go with the grain of the Bill.

I hope that the Government feel able to accept the spirit of the amendments, if not to the letter, and will agree that such an arrangement can be sensibly considered and made in the year before the lottery comes into force. That would give another signal to the industry that the Government do more than talk and generally want to act to help the British film industry.

Mr. Cryer

I shall concentrate my remarks on amendments Nos. 119 to 122 and 198, which I tabled and which fall into two categories, and declare my interest as a governor of the British Film Institute. Although I am very pleased to hold that office, I hasten to add that I receive no remuneration—I just have the pleasure of taking part in the work of the most important body in the country working for the preservation and promotion of the visual arts.

Being the Member of Parliament for Bradford, South, I represent the city that is the home of the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television, which is extremely successful. A new cinema, Pictureville, also opened there recently—and that cannot have happened in many cities. Pictureville is promoted by the museum and has become a centre of interest and importance for film and television.

As a matter of historical interest, the major office of what used to be Gaumont British was centred in Bradford. It was promoted by the Ostrer brothers, who were very big in the wool industry as the owners of a firm called Salts (Saltaire) Ltd. As one of them was a socialist, he offered the whole Gaumont British film circuit and the Gaumont British film studios to Ramsay MacDonald's Labour Government, who told him firmly that they did not think that Governments should have anything to do with film production. We have come a long way since then. The Ostrer brothers developed that great circuit from their offices in Bradford. I want to persuade the Minister that the Government should have something to do with promoting film archive work, promotion work and representation of the industry work and with the production of films.

My amendments provide for a reduction in the Millennium Commission's funds and for the allocation of money to film—to be divided between the British Film Institute and a national film corporation. They also provide for money to be provided directly to the BFI from the section allocated to the arts. An allocation percentage is provided for. I point that out so that the Minister will have plenty of alternatives on which to draw when making the sympathetic reply that I know he will wish to make.

It is important to emphasise that this money is not designed to be a substitute for existing grant aid on which the BFI exists. Therefore, I draw the Minister's attention to the purpose for which this money for the BFI, if supplemented, could be used. At the Elstree studios near Borehamwood, film archives for the old Associated British Picture Corporation were established. When the old ABP studios were sold off to Cannon, Cannon sold off the film archives—the visual treasures of our nation's history, going back to the 1890s—to an American company, the Weintraub Organisation.

Elstree studios were sold off by Cannon, and some of the ground area has been converted into a supermarket. The result is that the film archives are being transferred elsewhere. The BFI wanted to buy those precious film archives, for they represent living history, animated in a way that has never been possible before. These precious assets belong to our nation. Although it made an effort, the BFI did not have sufficient money, from its existing grant, to purchase those precious millions of feet of film and preserve them for the nation, although that is the very purpose for which the Department of National Heritage is designed. When archive material of that nature becomes available in future, lottery money could be used to obtain it. However, those archives have been sold off to a French firm, Le Studio Canal.

If film archives were considered to be works of art, an export licence would be required if somebody wanted to export that material, but no export licence is required to export film. Many great British films are regarded by everybody as works of art. It is the most popular form of artistic culture that we have ever achieved. It touches more people than any other art form. It combines all the arts into one medium which, at its best, can be the most powerful medium that humanity has known, yet those millions of feet have simply gone outside our control. The allocation of lottery money to the BFI could be used for that important purpose.

Let us take another example—the archives at Berkhamsted, where precious film which has been purchased, allocated or donated to the British Film Institute is carefully preserved. As the House is no doubt aware, though, until the mid-1950s, film was developed on cellulose nitrate stock. Cellulose nitrate stock is fragile. It has the extraordinary and very disturbing property of being self-combustible at certain stages of degeneration. If, therefore, films are to be preserved, they have to be transferred to cellulose acetate stock, which is not subject to that degenerating process and is permanent.

The problem is that the transfer process is costly and is being undertaken by the BFI from its existing funds. We hope that the money allocated by the Arts Council to the BFI will be a fixed percentage, if the Minister agrees, so that the BFI can calculate what sort of programme it can undertake and the transfer programme can be undertaken with money which is not part of the BFI's existing grant. That would mean that, if there were any serious deterioration in the nitrate stock, the stock could be transferred much more rapidly. I mention that as an example of what the BFI and other bodies could undertake if there were an allocation of funds from the lottery beyond their grant aid, which would give them more certainty for the future.

I know that it is late; the Minister should not frown about that, because the Government should have realised that such important legislation would be subject to scrutiny on Report. It is right and proper that the House should spend some time on this examination.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) mentioned film production. Some of my amendments would allow for an allocation to an organisation developed for the promotion of British film production and to the BFI, or to the BFI alone. The British Screen Advisory Council sent me a proposal for film production which, in essence, involves the development of a national film corporation. It was only a proposal, so the amendments provide for the creation of a body that could be authorised by the Secretary of State to allocate money. The amendments are highly flexible, which means that the Minister has a number of choices.

Film production is very important. The United States has two major exports. Aerospace items are first on the list and film and television programmes are second. They create revenue but also a cascade effect for a range of products. If British films are selling well abroad, the likelihood is that British aerospace items, British textiles and British engineering will benefit from their success. If the films are seen by millions of people—they will be if they are successful—they can establish a benchmark of excellence. That is what has happened in the United States because of the success of its manufacturing technology. It is not a question of production for production's sake—it is a matter of our national presence in the rest of the world.

We have the advantage of speaking English. The American market is the biggest English-speaking market in the world. It is worth bearing it in mind that this country has unsurpassed standards of technical excellence. That is why Steven Spielberg produced so many films here before the erosion of the capital allowances reduced the American presence in this country.

Spielberg attended a meeting in the House and I asked him whether it was true that, despite the fact that America has a great history of making classic films which we have all had the pleasure of enjoying, the standards of technical excellence in this country were as good as or, in many cases, better than those in the United States. Spielberg answered that it was true: the standards of technical excellence in this country are better because of our system of apprenticeship and the gradation of age. Older, more experienced people can pass on knowledge to younger people in the industry. If we have no British film industry and no British film production—we are already reaching that stage—the reservoir of knowledge and expertise will be eroded.

In 1991 there were 59 feature films, in 1992 there were 42, and as for this year, Screen Finance, produced by the Financial Times on 24 March 1993, said: Just four films involving British production companies and intended for a theatrical release are likely to have gone before the cameras by the end of the first quarter of 1993, according to information collected by Screen Finance. The figure, which includes three co-productions, is six fewer than in the comparable period in 1992 and five fewer than in the first three months of 1991". So the prospect is not hopeful.

10.30 pm

The British Screen Advisory Council suggests that, especially in view of an increase in cinema admissions in this country from the low of 53 million in 1984 to more than 100 million in 1992, a national film corporation should be established on the basis of the successful period of the firm EMI, in which it had a pre-selling arrangement with the United States for five successful major feature films—"The Deer hunter", "Death on the Nile", "Convoy", "Warlords of Atlantis" and "The Driver". Only when EMI began to promote its own films in the United States did it pursue a disastrous production course, and it then lost about £90 million.

The company's earlier success was achieved on a basic budget of $9 million, which produced a gross profit of about $24 million for EMI, irrespective of the additional profit for the United States. That is the basis proposed by the British Screen Advisory Council, but that sort of money is needed to start things off.

A criticism of the EMI programme is that it could be argued that, apart from "Death on the Nile", the films involved were much closer to the United States than to indigenous British life and did not reflect our aims, culture and ambitions—which they should have done. However, on the back of successful co-productions, we could have smaller productions that reflected our way of life—films such as "Gregory's Girl", which was made for £350,000 10 years or so ago, and took more than £2 million.

My amendments cover such a proposal, and I hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically because, as a result of various failures which I do not have the time to enumerate—Goldcrest was a symbol of over-expenditure and financial failure, as subsequently was EMI, as I have just explained—the film industry now has a proposal for a potential success, but only if it receives help from the Government through the lottery. The Minister may say that that is not the Government's policy, but other nations in the English-speaking world are providing the help that has supplied the basis for export success. We have only to consider Australia to realise that its film production industry has been successful because of a basis of central and state government help.

I hope that the Minister will consider my proposal sympathetically. We must bear in mind the fact that, as he has repeated several times, he is considering the whole period of 12 months over which the lottery will be brought into operation. Proposals such as mine could be incorporated into the legislation so that we could both give the British Film Institute the extra money with which it could do so much to preserve our film and cinema heritage and enable British film production to get off the ground again—I must tell the Minister that it is on its knees at the moment.

Sir Anthony Durant (Reading, West)

As the other governor of the British Film Institute, from the Government side, I should like to contribute to this short debate.

There is no doubt that there are concerns in the film industry about the lottery and the way in which it is being handled. When the Government were returned at the general election, the industry welcomed the policy of having one Department to look after it. That was a great step forward, for which the industry had pressed for years. It was fed up with being handled partly by the Department of Trade and Industry, partly by the Education Department and partly by the Home Office. Being looked after by three Departments made it difficult for the industry to get its cause before the Government, so it welcomes as a great step forward the fact that there was to be only one Department.

The film industry has also welcomed the discussions that it is having with the Secretary of State. However, it feels that, because the Minister is suggesting that the money will go through the Arts Council, it will be sidestepped and will not have the opportunity to put its own case and to get its own money. The British Film Institute does not have great confidence that the Arts Council really looks after it. The institute feels that the Arts Council does not entirely understand films. Why not have a specialist committee to distribute money to the film industry? I urge the Minister to consider that point again.

The film industry remains a mixture of an art form, an entertainment medium, an educator and a big business. It is the art form—the cultural form—about which we are talking principally tonight. We need a greater British input to highlight our national heritage and culture. We make very good films when we are given the opportunity, and they do very well. However, the opportunities to make such films are diminishing. Distribution is one of the difficulties we face, although that is a side issue in this debate.

We should put more money from the lottery towards the film industry by the methods that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has mentioned to the BFI. I urge the Department to talk to the Treasury. The classification of film as a capital item some years ago revived the British film industry. It really got going, but then the scheme was stopped. It was a wonderful opportunity. An opportunity was created for people to invest money in the film industry, which is the key to it all, and it got the film industry going again.

We could use some of the lottery money on the Children's Film Foundation. It is a tragedy that the television companies do not make films for children, but only children's programmes. The foundation has done a remarkable job over the years in making very suitable films for children, especially for the Saturday morning matinees. That is a positive, educational and constructive area into which we could put some of the lottery money. I urge the Department to look again at the proposals for the film industry and at the way in which the money is distributed.

Mr. Key

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) for his contribution, and to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). My hon. Friend raised some important and interesting issues. I shall consider the question of the Children's Film Foundation and learn about its contribution. It is clearly a matter of great concern to my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend asked why we could not have a sub-committee for film. In a nutshell, the answer is that, if we had a sub-committee for film, we should have to have a sub-committee for every other branch of the arts. That would be wasteful and would not address the problem of how best to provide a fair distribution of resources within the 20 per cent. category for the arts as a whole. I take the point that the world of film feels that the Arts Council does not love it. That notion has been around for a long while. I do not intend to comment on the substance or otherwise of it. Nevertheless, it is a perception that we cannot ignore. I shall explain how we shall seek to address that point.

The hon. Member for Bradford, South made a very helpful contribution, and I am grateful to him for raising what he described as right and proper concerns even at this hour. I take on board what he says about Elstree. I recall my visit to Pinewood not so long ago, when I met a number of the interests there. I was, as ever, impressed by the capability and competence of our production centres. I include in the same breath Shepperton, which still makes a remarkable contribution and is very much part of our heritage. It is well represented by its Member of Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie), who is here tonight.

The hon. Member for Bradford, South also drew attention to the interesting ideas in the amendment. We shall think about them. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's various suggestions.

I shall disappoint the House by not accepting wholesale—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or retail."] or, indeed, retail—the amendments on offer tonight, and I shall seek to explain why. I shall also seek to explain why I am prepared to listen and to work during the next 12 months to ensure that we get the answers right.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has initiated a new round of discussions with the film industry. We have already had the first session, and we shall have another tomorrow, and a number are planned for the coming weeks. We are very much in listening mode and have specifically asked the film producers—and will ask the industry more widely—to think for themselves and then to share with us thoughts about the ways in which we might legitimately make progress on the issue of the national lottery.

I am well aware of the importance of the United Kingdom film industry; that goes without saying. I enjoy as much as anyone else taking my family to the cinema, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently went to a cinema in my constituency to see an excellent British film. I am very proud of what the industry has been able to achieve. Although Oscars do not mean everything, those awarded recently mark the success of the United Kingdom film industry, which has been very significant of late. As the House knows, we support the film industry in a number of ways.

In the Bill, we have chosen to use one body—the Arts Council—to distribute lottery money to the arts. We are quite clear that the arts include film and crafts. We decided that it would not be practical to use a specific film sub-committee, because if we did that for film, we would have to do it for every other sector of the arts: there is no reason why we should not multiply the number of distribution bodies in other sectors to follow that argument. In effect, we would be opening the floodgates, and I do not think that that would be an effective way to proceed.

Under clause 24, we will direct the Arts Council to take into account the need to fund film and craft applications and we will generally direct the Arts Council and other distribution bodies that, if they do not have specific expertise in a particular area, they should seek it from a relevant expert body—unless, of course, that expert body is the one applying for the funding.

In considering applications for lottery funding, the Arts Council proposes to use a special lottery committee which will have on it at least one member with expertise on film and one with expertise on crafts. Those members will call on the advice of many expert bodies, such as—but not exclusively—the British Film Institute, to help them to make their decisions. We think that that provides a very flexible framework within which film stands to benefit a great deal from lottery proceeds.

I fully accept the spirit of amendments Nos. 102 to 104, although I hope to reassure the House that they are unnecessary. The Arts Council charter makes it clear that the council can fund film. I have said that, under clause 24, we will direct that it should fund applications from the film and craft sectors. In its annual report on how it has distributed the lottery proceeds, the council will have to publish the directions and demonstrate achievement against those directions. If film is not being given a fair share, it will be quite clear to the House.

On a practical level, it is now up to the Arts Council and the interested bodies to work together to find the best way to develop the film element. There is a read-across to other areas: the Sports Council will clearly be able to fund football and hockey from its lottery allocation, but we do not need—nor do we want—to specify that in the Bill.

Co-operation and a willingness to work constructively and with enthusiasm for the task are the key, as is an ability to use imagination and to regard the lottery money as a new source of funding that should be considered in a new way. Organisations, whether in the film world or in other areas, should not look to lottery funds as a means of financing long-cherished grant strategies or as a source of core funding. The intention of the lottery is to develop projects that are developed from the ground, not dictated as part of some grant plan. That is why I was especially grateful for the practical suggestions made by the hon. Member for Bradford, South.

The House should remember that, once the Bill is passed, the Arts Council and film representatives will have a year or so to get things right and to work out a suitable system to enable film to benefit to its maximum potential.

I cannot accept amendments Nos. 119 to 122, as they bring into play two additional bodies, including one which does not at the moment exist. The British Film Institute is very important and that is why we choose to allocate to it £15 million a year. However, it is only one player in the varied world of film and to name a particular body in the world of film in respect of the amendment would, to say the least, be a source of contention.

The BFI has a clear opportunity to work with the Arts Council and to discover the best way to distribute money for film within the framework offered by the Bill. The amendments also suggest removing most of the allocation of lottery proceeds from the Millennium Commission and giving them to film outside the arts allocation. I cannot accept that. The Millennium Commission is an intrinsic part of the Bill and film will clearly receive funding from the arts element.

10.45 pm

The amendment specifically mentions film production. The Bill does not rule out the possibility of funding film production. The exact use to which lottery money should be put will be for the distribution body to establish with the expert bodies in the film world. At the Secretary of State's first meeting on film last week, we specifically asked the film producers to work out ideas on how they believe lottery money might reasonably be applied. That will be of great assistance to the Arts Council, which will, in any case, consult widely about how money for film should be distributed.

We have an open mind and believe that the provisions in the Bill provide a wide canvas to create an excellent distribution mechanism that will work to the best advantage of film. I hope that I can persuade hon. Members not to press the amendment. I hope that I have been able to reassure them that we understand the problems of the film industry and that we will understand them better after we have completed our round of consultation.

As the Minister responsible for film, I will of course be paying the usual visit to the Cannes film festival. I expect no tears about that. It will be an extremely hectic and short weekend and I am warned that there will be no time for fun. Later in the year I will visit Paris and Berlin with David Puttnam to learn more about their industries. I will go with him so that I get the proper perspective.

I hasten to add that, following the examples of the French and the Germans, who have particular problems in having lesser used languages, does not necessarily mean that we would wish to emulate exactly what they do. Film producers have repeatedly stressed to us that they are not simply coming with a begging bowl looking for subsidy. They have a sophisticated and precise range of requests to which we are listening.

I have described a distribution mechanism that we have constructed which I believe will deliver to film and crafts a fair share of lottery proceeds.

Mr. Corbett

With the leave of the House, I would like to reply.

This has been a helpful and useful debate with some extremely informed contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) with their great interest in the film industry.

The Minister's remarks are helpful, as they were designed to be, not least perhaps to the Arts Council, which will know that the film industry expects more than a nodding acquaintance in the distribution of lottery moneys under its auspices. The Minister is right to say that in no sense should the film industry look to lottery funds to take on the bulk of whatever may be decided as a result of the Secretary of State's consultations with the film industry and the propositions that it makes about how the Government may better help the industry. I understand that important distinction.

On the back of the Oscar awards, it does not help to say that they mark the success of the British film industry. The most that can be claimed is that they mark the success and excellence of a number of individuals in the British film industry which collectively is, and should be, more important than that. I am not knocking the contribution that those individuals and their colleagues made in the winning of Oscars, but that is no substitute for us having a properly based and organised British film industry.

The consultations in which the right hon. Gentleman is engaging with all branches of the industry prompts us all to ask whether we really want a British film industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South demonstrated—I know that he could have said a great deal more—it is not simply a question of what the British film industry can do in terms of our own popular culture, important though that is; it is a question of our ability to do what we have done so successfully in the past through the medium of film. Those films—many sadly, made in black and white—said so much about the Britain of that period. In a sense, they represent a sort of visual BBC World Service—but we should also see films as many of our European partners do: as a source of revenue for the industry and the country.

The debate has been worth while, and I thank the Minister for what he has said. I am sure that he appreciates that this is not the last that we shall hear of the matter, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Pendry

I beg to move amendment No. 14, in clause 20 page 9, line 21, at end insert 'of which some proportion shall be allocated for expenditure on or in connection with football'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may take amendment No. 15, in clause 21, page 9, line 35, at end insert 'who shall distribute such proportion as they I think appropriate to the Footbal Trust'.

Mr. Pendry

Rather than speaking to the amendments, I had hoped to be returning from Wembley after cheering on our national side. I had to give the tickets back; I hope that someone will shout out the score before I finish speaking.

The amendments go to the heart of a vital issue. We must ensure that, in introducing a national lottery, we safeguard the interests of football in this country. I hope that the Minister shares my view that football has particular needs which must be taken into account: it is our national game, and it is an important part of the fabric of many people's lives.

Happily, the game is thriving at all levels, from the very top of the professional game down to junior boys' and—in these enlightened times—girls' teams. Football has no parallel in terms of the extent and depth of participation; and, of course, no sport has such spectator appeal. The huge following that the game attracts represents a special dimension when we consider the needs of the sport.

It is right for the Government, and all of us, to take every possible step to ensure that our football grounds are safe. Clubs must meet the requirements laid down by Lord Justice Taylor in his report following the Hillsborough disaster of 1989, and ensure that spectators enjoy the standards of safety and comfort that they have every right to expect. I have no quarrel with any of that, but we must recognise that football faces a huge task in converting grounds to all-seated accommodation, and—in the lower divisions of the Football League and in Scotland—ensuring that any retained standing terracing is safe.

A great deal of ground development work has still to be done, and football faces an enormous bill in completing it —probably as much as £400 million in the years ahead. The traditional source of funds for football—indeed, until the recent television agreements, virtually the only source —has been the football pools. That is one of the main reasons why all my hon. Friends—and, I suggest, many Conservative Members as well—are so insistent that there must be fair competition between the pools and the national lottery. The lottery gives us the chance to do more for football, and that is the purpose of these amendments.

How can the funds best be channelled into the game? That is no easy task, as the Minister recognises. The needs and resources of clubs vary enormously. Clubs at the grass roots need basic facilities like pitches and changing rooms; as we move up the leagues, the requirements become greater. Certifying authorities are rightly concerned about safety and crowd control; that concern is reflected at the lower levels of the league as well as at the top. Many conference and feeder league clubs need to undertake major ground redevelopment work for safety reasons and to meet league requirements.

Fortunately, we have the Football Trust, a body vastly experienced in the complex matter of grant aid in football. I am sure that we are all aware of the crucially important work carried out by the trust. It provides essential help to football clubs from the top level to the grass roots of the game throughout the country. It has provided more than £150 million in grant aid to football at all levels since it started life as the Football Grounds Improvement Trust in 1975.

In 1990, the Government reduced pool betting duty by 2.5 per cent. on the understanding that the funds produced —some £20 million a year for each of the five years for which the agreement with the Government runs—would be used to help clubs to meet the requirements of the Taylor report.

The Government chose the trust as the vehicle for channelling much-needed support into the game. The Opposition fully understood why that decision was made. The trust has a long history of distributing grant aid money. It has tackled its priority task of helping clubs to implement Taylor. It has particularly helped clubs in the premier league and first division of the Football League to convert their grounds to all-seated accommodation. That has been a great success.

Grants totalling more than £63 million have been made to major ground redevelopment works, costing some £235 million. All that has been achieved with the interests of efficiency, cost-effectiveness and accountability firmly in mind. The trust has proven procedures in place involving professional surveyors and accountants designed to ensure the proper appraisal of clubs' plans. It has an annual budget of more than £36 million and a staff of only nine. Its administration overheads account for less than 2 per cent. of its income.

I have seen a letter, as I am sure the Minister has, from Sir Peter Yarranton, the chairman of the Sports Council, to Lord Aberdare, the chairman of the Football Trust, in which he acknowledges the position of the trust in channelling funds to football clubs. He says in his letter: the Football Trust is clearly the appropriate organisation to continue its excellent and highly regarded work in this sector. I envisage that the Sports Council for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would each wish to devote a significant share of their lottery revenues to annual allocation of the Football Trust, taking full advantage of your well tested methods of appraisal and allocation."

I quote that letter because it describes perfectly the sensible position that the Opposition wish to reach. I look forward to the Minister's commendation of it.

The Government have said that once they are satisfied that the football leagues and clubs are playing their full part in meeting the cost of ground redevelopment work from their own resources, they will extend the life of the reduction in pool betting duty for a further five years from 1995, to match the Taylor timetable. Football has already demonstrated that it is taking its responsibilities seriously and providing a reasonable part of the cost of redeveloping grounds from its own resources. I hope that football and the trust will not have to wait much longer for confirmation that the life of the betting duty concession is to be extended.

The point of the amendment is to say to the Minister that the Sports Council does not have a relationship with professional football and needs the assistance of a football trust and people with expertise to channel the moneys into the proper quarter.

Someone has told me that the score is England 2 Holland 2. I say that for the benefit of the Minister, but he knows already. I hope that the Minister accepts that we need a professional body linked with the Sports Council which can channel the money effectively to ensure that our football grounds are safe in line with Lord Justice Taylor's report. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), who is a Derby County supporter, agrees with me.

Mr. Key

I believe that we all agree about the importance of football as our national sport. In the past week, the saga of Gazza's knee has been a source of great concern to many people in England. The capacity crowd at Wembley has carried the burden of anxiety for many people tonight as England played Holland and drew, 2–2.

Other national teams of the countries of the United Kingdom were facing similar challenges tonight. Scottish hearts were turned to Portugal; Scotland, I fear, went down 5–0; the hopes of Wales were set on the Czech Republic, where the team drew; 1–1 while Northern Irish eyes were directed to Spain, where, unfortunately, their team went down 3–1.

Mr. David Hinchliffe (Wakefield)

Can we have the rugby league results as well?

11 pm

Mr. Key

Later.

The prospect of all four nations being represented at the world cup in the United States next year is rather a faint one at the moment.

I understand the intention behind the amendment, but I am reluctant to agree to it. It would have many undesirable consequences. For example, to single out professional football for special treatment might be highly contentious—some hon. Members in the Chamber might agree—and could be detrimental to other sports.

The argument against singling out one potential beneficiary in the Bill was put when we discussed the film industry. I do not accept that, as a result of the lottery, the pools will suffer and so the income of the Football Trust will fall. I do not accept that, given competent management, the pools should suffer as a result of the national lottery. The changes already made to the pools regime places it in a far better competitive position than it has ever occupied. It would not be surprising if the pools increased its current turnover.

The income for the Football Trust comes partly from the 2.5 per cent. pools betting duty, contributed by the Treasury, and a contribution from the spot-the-ball competition organised by that happy band of Littlewoods, Vernons and Zetters. That is a proper contribution to the game, without which that band's competition could not exist.

It would not be right to name the Football Trust as a beneficiary in the Bill, but we are determined that football should be able to benefit from the lottery. It has been suggested that, as the Sports Council has not funded football hitherto, it will not do so in the future. That is not so.

How football clubs use their programme money is dictated by a set of priorities according to the level of resources available. Those clubs will, of course, be able to apply for funds from the lottery and it will give them far greater sums to use, according to applications received. Applications by that sport will be judged, genuinely, on their merits. The Football Trust will also continue to carry out its valuable work. That means that the sport will be in an extremely good position.

The amendment is unnecessary. We have no doubt that those connected with football will be able to apply for funds and that the Sports Council will do its duty. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) will not press his amendment to a vote.

Mr. Pendry

With the leave of the House, I wish to reply.

The Minister has missed the point completely. In Committee, I asked him if he would endeavour to build a bridge between football and the Sports Council and he said that he would. I had expected him to give a much more positive response tonight.

I support the Sports Council, but its staff do not have the necessary expertise to do the jobs that football requires to be done as a result of Government legislation, no less. The sport therefore needs a much more positive response from the Minister. I hope that he will reflect on the matter.

I shall not press the amendment to a vote, but I should like to visit the Minister, if he will receive me, to put the case more clearly, if I did not do so tonight, because he has missed the point. I shall then try to offer him a better explanation of our argument. At this stage, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.