Sitting of 7 November 1974

Preamble
The House met at halt-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ELECTION EXPENSES
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return showing the expenses of each candidate at the General Election of October 1974 in the United Kingdom, as transmitted to the returning officers pursuant to the Representation of the People Act 1949, and of the number of votes polled by each candidate, the description of each candidate, the number of polling districts and stations, the number of electors, and the number of persons entitled to vote by post.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Beef
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how far his policy of achieving a price of £18 cwt to beef producers is falling short of this figure in the markets of the southwest of England.
    Sir J. Langfor-Holtasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take to ensure at once to beef producers the minimum price of £18 per cwt promised by him on 17th July.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the condition of the livestock industry.
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will induce forthwith a scheme guaranteeing minimum market prices for beef pro-
    1216
    ducers, in order to prevent a decline in breeding stock.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on Government help to the beef producers.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): In view of the number of questions about the beef situation I will, with permission, answer this question and Nos. 6, 10, 11 and 14 together and give a longer reply than is usual.
    The present low prices for fat cattle are the result of heavy marketings which are one-third higher than a year ago. Some of these cattle are of poor quality and are being slaughtered prematurely because of recent wet weather and anxiety about fodder supplies during the winter. Although there has been some improvement in auction prices in the last few days, the situation remains serious.
    In my speech during the debate on the Gracious Speech last week I described the measures the Government have taken to safeguard the future supplies of beef. More than £150 million of support is being given to beef producers this year. The maximum support given to beef producers in any previous year was £80 million, in 1970–71. The additional £100 million recently awarded to the dairy sector will also help to ensure a continuing supply of calves for beef production.
    I am conducting an urgent survey to find out how much winter fodder is available and where it is. When we have established the facts we shall consider whether any further assistance could usefully help to distribute fodder supplies to those areas where it is most needed.
    I am also considering with my colleagues the problem resulting from the importation of Irish cattle. I must point out, however, that this is a traditional trade and the greater part of these cattle are imported as stores for further fattening by farmers in this country. The numbers imported for immediate slaughter are only a very small percentage of our total weekly slaughterings of cattle.
    The real concern at the moment is the I described last week the changes needed need for an assured return to producers,

    1217
    in the beef régime to bring this about. We all recognise the seriousness of the present situation and I shall do all I can to get urgent action to this end at the Council of Ministers' meeting on 18th November.
    Mr. Mills: Will the Minister now accept that he has misled and deceived the British beef farmer, particularly in his promise of £18 per hundredweight? Will the Minister now recognise that this is particularly cruel in view of the situation that the beef farmers are experiencing, and will he now use the intervention guarantee in some form or another, or bring in an immediate beef guarantee?
    May I say that it used to be "Good old Fred"; it is now "Fred, who has misled the beef producers of this country."
    Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that. I am bound by the Community. The Conservative Government decided to end the guarantee. The Conservative Party is bound by the Community, and one of the Conservative Party's shadow No. 2s on agriculture knows full well that his party would not defy the Community. As I have said, I have decided to approach the Community not in February, but this month.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday I was given an answer on the right hon. Gentleman's behalf saying that the problems today were caused by excessive marketing and generally a lower than usual quality of animals? Is that seriously the argument put forward by the Minister? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise, even at this stage, that the beef farmers' position is absolutely desperate, and the sort of words that he used, namely, that returns should improve, are wholly inadequate?
    Mr. Peart: I said that one of the reasons has been the present low prices for fat cattle as a result of heavy marketing, which is one-third higher than a year ago. Conservative Members should remember that it was their Government who asked producers to transfer from dairying to beef.
    Mr. Dalyell: What are some of us to tell the Scottish farmers about the export of cow beef cattle?
    Mr. Peart: I know that my hon. Friend is anxious about the O'Brien Report, but there are different reasons. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), who speaks for farming interests, has next to him the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) who takes a different view. There are people in the House who believe it should be stopped. I probably have a different view, but I must come to a decision, it is true, and the House in the end will have to debate it. We must have consultations with our suppliers. My hon. Friend knows full well about the O'Brien Report. I am probably on his side on this matter, but in the end there has to be a decision made by the House.
    Mr. Farr: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been baffled in Brussels and hoodwinked in Luxembourg by the Europeans? Even if he had the desire, he has not the ability to help British beef producers at this moment.
    Will the Minister look into the question of large multi-national meat companies which own slaughterhouses in many of the best parts of Britain and which, for weeks, have excluded homegrown beef and are slaughtering only Irish beef imports?
    Mr. Peart: Yes, I shall. I give that assurance. But in reference to my excursions to Brussels and Luxembourg, may I say that I believe I got a very good package deal? It was approved by many members of the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman knows that. It gave the dairy farmers the biggest award that they have ever had.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the money being paid out under the beef premium scheme, which my right hon. Friend introduced in all good faith, is not reaching the producer whom it was originally intended to help? Will he be good enough to institute an immediate inquiry into that scheme?
    Secondly, on the question of fodder, which is absolutely vital to the stores' producers in Wales and the West Country, will the Minister be good enough to say how urgently this is being examined and when be can make a statement about assistance with fodder to these farmers?
    Mr. Peart: Yes, the matter is being considered now. As soon as I can make a statement I shall do so.
    On the question of the premiums, I accept what my right hon. Friend said. The premium system was a good system. It was approved by the farmers' unions It could be improved, which is why I am going to Brussels very soon. I shall raise the matter then.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: When he is in Brussels, will the Ministers try to correct the system whereby dairy farmers are still getting substantial grants to change over from dairy to beef? It seems to me to be an anomaly in a situation in which we have a surplus of beef. That is one way in which we could save money.
    Mr. Peart: Yes, I shall do that.
    Mr. Pym: Does the Minister not agree now that his unilateral act to opt out of intervention in March was an act approaching almost criminal folly, from the point of view of the beef producer? We have been let down seriously. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that he spoke in the House in June about £18 per hundredweight. We have been hoping since then that he would meet that commitment, but is it not worse than that? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as reported in the Western Mail a week ago, one of his officers in Wales was saying that many farmers would do better by accepting as little as £4 rather than by keeping their store cattle through the winter? Does that not imply that he does not intend to act in the near future, when we have been pressing him to act immediately? Will the right hon. Gentleman please comment on that and take action before many of these farmers are ruined?
    Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that even within the Community intervention has not worked. I thought the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends wanted to put a support in the market, in the sense that the guarantee system—[Interruption.] I much prefer that. But does the hon. Member say that what I have said is not true? One has only to examine the Community—
    Mr. Pym: I have.
    Mr. Peart: So have I. The right hon. Member knows full well that beef becomes a degraded product as soon as it is put into intervention. This is one of the difficulties. I would much prefer to have in the Market something different from intervention.

    Cattle Imports (Ireland)
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fat cattle and how many store cattle have been imported into the United Kingdom from Eire since 1st August 1974.
    The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): Imports of Irish Republic cattle into the United Kingdom during the months of August to September were as follows:

    Fats

    2,288 head

    Stores

    79,050 head

    No later official figures are available, but unofficial estimates indicate that sendings during October showed some decline.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the Minister of State agree that this situation cannot be allowed to continue? It is making our beef farmers' situation infinitely worse. Does he not agree that something must be done immediately by his right hon. Friend to stop the importation of fat cattle into this country and the paying out of the slaughter premium to them? There should be a 60-day waiting period. Does he not also agree that he should immediately start negotiations with the Irish Minister to cut down the amount of imports of stores which are using up the fodder which is in short supply? It must be done now, not next week.
    Mr. Bishop: We recognise the concern. The main point about the import of Irish cattle is that this it not expressly directed at the Irish situation; it is a matter of national concern. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was his Government who got rid of the domiciliary period in scrapping the fatstock guarantee scheme, which not only got rid of the assurances the farmers now seek, but took away the domiciliary period which they are now asking to be returned. I remind the hon. Gentleman also of the assurances given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on 31st October when he said that

    1221
    he would see that the matter was looked into. This is being done as urgently as possible.
    Mr. Fitt: I claim absolutely no knowledge of agriculture, but is not it a fact that the cattle from Ireland, both from North and South—I am glad to see there is no discrimination—have already been bought by Welsh, Scots and English farmers, and this is discrimination not against Irish cattle but against people living in this part of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Bishop: I wish the hon. Gentleman's candour about his knowledge of the industry was matched by similar candour on the part of some members of the Opposition. The point to be made is that the import of cattle from the Republic is carried out under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement, and the number coming in is a small percentage of what could come in if the agreement were observed. The other factor is that imports are in line with traditional levels but higher than last year's very low figures. They represent about 5 per cent. of the current United Kingdom slaughterings.
    With regard to trying to restrict this cattle trade, I have pointed out the obligations we have under the agreement which we are honouring. Further to that, were we to take steps recommended by some Conservative Members we should be in breach of the treaty obligations which were negotiated, and accepted by them, and such unilateral action would be unjustified.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Common Market rules for Italy are the same as they are for Britain, and that what the Italians can do under treaty we can do? We ask him to do the same for Britain as the Italians have done for Italy. If that involves denouncing the Anglo-Irish treaty, let it be done.
    Mr. Bishop: It is rather much for the hon. Gentleman to side with those discussing the taking of unilateral action when he rightly deplores some of the unilateral action which has taken place this week in the Welsh ports. The fact remains that because we are in the Common Market we can only renegotiate the changes which he seeks, and with the consent of our partners.
    Mr. Duffy: The Minister is right to remind the House that the average weekly shipment from the Irish Republic is only half the Irish entitlement under the agreement and is only 5 per cent. of the average British weekly slaughter total, but is he aware that, small though the Irish shipments are, they help to sustain a demand in Southern Ireland for British goods that makes that market Britain's fourth largest export market?
    Mr. Bishop: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The number of cattle that could be imported from Ireland under the agreement is more than 600,000 and the number actually imported is a small proportion of that. I also remind the House that this shows that the problems we face with our beef are not confined to us alone, because in wanting to export the cattle in this way the Irish are doing something to benefit their market. Overall, this shows the failure of intervention not only in Ireland but elsewhere.
    Mr. Jopling: Although it is clear that the Irish import situation has contributed to the collapse of the beef market, will the Minister of State now answer the question that his right hon. Friend failed to answer? Was it with the authority of his right hon. Friend that his divisional officer in Cardiff, Mr. Jameson, told farmers that they would have seriously to consider whether they sold stores at £4 a hundredweight now? We have not had an answer. We must know whether that statement was made with the authority of the Minister.
    Mr. Bishop: I think the point is that Government policy is usually expressed by the Ministers, but, on the point made by the hon. Gentleman, we shall look into the situation.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall seek leave to raise the matter at the earliest moment on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to take any steps to limit the imports of live Irish cattle.
    Mr. Bishop: We are considering the representations that were made on this subject during the debate on 31st October.
    Mr. Miller: Will the Minister please understand that although farmers accept that there is a traditional trade in the import of Irish cattle they cannot understand and cannot accept the exchange of party politics across the Floor of the House? They wish for some action now. If action cannot be taken under the terms of our obligations to limit the imports, will the Minister consider some action to withdraw from such imports the subsidies that are threatening the price structure? Will he please understand that even 5 per cent. of imports at a lower price can have a grave effect on the market?
    Mr. Bishop: Regarding the eligibility for the beef premium, the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that when the beef premium scheme was introduced it was agreed that the beef premium would be paid on all eligible cattle imported from the Republic. In the debate to which I referred a few Questions ago, my right hon. Friend the Minister undertook to look at the matter urgently.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister not agree that it is his duty to look after the interests of the beef producers of the United Kingdom and not be so anxious to look after the beef producers of the Republic of Ireland? Does he not agree with me that, further to the statement made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), the beef producers of the United Kingdom are being discriminated against, in that producers from the Republic are receiving more money for their cattle than those who produce them in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Bishop: I am not aware of the discrimination to which the hon. Member refers, but I am aware that this Government have done an enormous amount to help beef producers. The total amount given to beef producers since March of this year is £150 million. I need hardly refer to the predictions made by my right hon. Friend earlier in this period.
    Mr. Ridley: If, because of alleged cruelty, it is decided to ban the export of live cattle from this country, why is it not decided to ban the import of live cattle into this country for the same reason?
    Mr. Bishop rose—
    Hon. Members: Answer!
    Mr. Bishop: That is precisely why I am at the Box. My right hon. Friend has given assurances about the O'Brien Report regarding the export of cattle, which I recognise has some significance in the present system of the beef market. At the same time, with regard to the possibility of banning imports, it could be a contravention of the treaty to which hon. Members committed us.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the British housewife would very much welcome the chance to eat Catholic beef and Catholic cattle rather than listen to the nonsense from Protestant bulls?
    Mr. Bishop: I am aware that the British housewife has catholic tastes. I am pleased to hear the reference to the housewife and the consumer, as well as the problems of the producer.
    Mr. Emery: Do the Minister of State and the Secretary of State realise that what worries so many farmers and many Members of the House is the apparent lack of sympathy and understanding of the beef problem by the Ministers and the officials? This has been apparent in the answers that we have received today. In order to overcome the major objection to the importation of Irish fat cattle when the British producer is on such a low return, will the Minister consider negotiating with the Irish Government for some limitation of this importation at the moment?
    Mr. Bishop: I think the hon. Member will recognise that the problem goes more deeply than that. There are, of course, the problems of the fodder situation, which is being looked at. There are also the problems of the domiciliary period, which, as I have said, we are examining urgently—and the problems of the O'Brien Report are also receiving urgent attention.
    As my right hon. Friend said earlier, we are looking for a new beef régime which is being negotiated urgently. Therefore, not only do people get sympathy; they also get action from this Government.
    Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for you to encourage the Minister of State to

    1225
    follow the practice of his right hon. Friends in grouping identical questions?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

    Sugar
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the recently negotiated sugar agreements.
    Mr. Molloyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what way the EEC sugar agreement will affect the British consumer; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Blakerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his recent negotiations in the EEC regarding sugar.
    Mr. Peart: On the special measures to ensure supplies of sugar to meet the Community's deficit, I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 1st November. The cost of this sugar when refined will be far below a world market price but I cannot at this stage make a firm forecast.
    On the future sugar régime of the Community, we have secured a maximum quota of just over 1·5 million metric tons at the full guaranteed price.
    Mr. Hamilton: Notwithstanding those agreements and the outcome of the talks with the Council of Ministers in the next week or two, will my right hon, Friend give an assurance that he will seek a long-term agreement for the import of cane sugar from the Commonwealth no matter what happens in the Council of Ministers? On the question of beet sugar, will he urge on the British Sugar Corporation the need to get on with modernising its processing equipment to cater for an increased beet supply in this country, particularly in Fife, and possibly the reopening of the sugar beet factory at Cupar? If there is likely to be a shortage of sugar next year, as there may well be, will my right hon. Friend not hesitate to introduce rationing, as that would clearly be a fairer system of ensuring that poorer sections of the community got a fair share of what was going?
    Mr. Peart: As my hon. Friend knows I did secure an increase in the acreage
    1226
    quota for beet sugar, but I am anxious to look at the position of Scotland on this issue. I am well aware of the matter that he mentioned. On the question of Commonwealth sugar, it is true that this is still a matter for the Community, and the whole question of the Protocol 22 countries, affecting the Caribbean, Swaziland and India, will be discussed very soon in the Community. We are aware of the concern and we are anxious to have a long-term agreement.
    Mr. Blaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the view which appears to be that of the cane sugar refinery workers, that as a result of his negotiations their jobs are at risk?
    Mr. Peart: No, I do not accept that. I think that too much alarm and despondency has been spread by certain people, for whatever reasons. I believe that the cane refiners' position will be safeguarded by the agreements reached in the Council of Ministers. I am meeting the workers concerned continually and have kept them informed throughout the negotiations.
    Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this is another bitter EEC pill for the British public to swallow, without any sugar to coat it? Ought he not now to try to renegotiate the Australian deal? Is my right hon. Friend prepared to meet all those involved in the refining, distributing and selling of sugar to try to sort out the mess we are in?
    Mr. Peart: May I say that I took the initiative to have talks with Australia, as I have mentioned in the House. I also raised the matter in the Community. I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that Australia would accept a deal only if it were approved by the Community. That is the position. In the circumstances, because of our immediate needs, I believe that what I did, namely, to accept negotiations endorsed by the Community and the scheme that has been announced for one year, is right in the circumstances.
    Mr. Shersby: Does the Minister agree that it is in the national interest for the maximum quantity of beet sugar to be grown in Britain, and for the maximum quantity of cane sugar to be imported into Britain, as distinct from the Community, if our sugar supplies are to be assured? Will he therefore press without

    1227
    further delay for the Community to agree to the importation of not less than 1·4 million tons of Commonwealth cane sugar to match the 1·5 million tons of beet sugar which it is hoped to grow in this country if we are to fulfil both our A and B quotas?
    Mr. Peart: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The answer to his supplementary question is that this matter will be discussed in the Community very soon. Our position is that we want the 1·4 million tons of sugar at a fair price to the producer. We believe that that would be the consumers' interest too. I have announced the increase in sugar beet, and I think that has been welcomed.
    Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to my information, the Australians were willing to offer about 300,000 tons a year for a minimum of five years, that the price for raw Australian sugar would have been about £140 a ton, compared with the EEC price of £134 a ton, and that, allowing for the subsidy involved, there would have been no great difference in the price? In those circumstances, was he right to turn down this offer?
    Mr. Pearl: I think my right hon. Friend has been wrongly informed. Australia was asking us to pay a higher price than we shall pay for Community sugar. There is no question about that. The price was £180 a ton, compared with £156 a ton.
    Mr. Pym: As the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement runs out at the end of next month, is it not extraordinary that the Minister should be talking about negotiating it with the Community very soon? I think those were his words. Will he assure the House that everything has been arranged, that supplies are settled, assured and fixed, and that contracts have been signed? Is that the situation?
    Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman must know that this has to be endorsed by the Community. I did not ask for this. This is the nature of the Community, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that full well. I am anxious that we should have the old Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, and also that we should receive the 1·4 million tons, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.
    Mr. Michael Marshallasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will give immediate consideration to the introduction of sugar rationing: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now consider the introduction of sugar rationing.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): I would refer hon. Members to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) on 5th November.
    Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that both that answer and the answer given earlier this afternoon are totally unsatisfactory? Is he further aware that it is time we looked at the practical problems? We know about the long-term difficulties over agreement, but is the hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulties which people working shifts, disabled people and pensioners are experiencing in trying to get to shops early enough to get limited supplies of sugar? Finally, will he confirm that he will take this matter seriously? It has been said that it will be difficult and expensive to introduce rationing. It was not difficult with petrol. Will the hon. Gentleman at least take the necessary powers so that he can move with speed to introduce rationing if necessary?
    Mr. Strang: I recognise the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but he will have to accept that rationing does not provide a simple solution. I assure him that we are looking at the short-term problems with great care.
    Mr. Molloy: Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to consider that part of my previous suplementary question which asks whether he will meet the representatives of all those involved in the refining, distributing and selling of sugar to try to resolve the mystery about there being tons and tons of sugar somewhere? Everyone has sugar except the British housewife.
    Mr. Strang: Let me take the first point first. We recognise the position of the refinery workers, and I suspect that no

    1229
    group of workers has had more frequent and direct access to a Minister than they have had to my right hon. Friend. Only this morning, two of my ministerial colleagues and I met refinery workers from Greenock.
    On the hon. Gentleman's second point, there is the apparent paradox that supplies that have moved into distribution and supplies of retail packets of sugar over the past few months have been higher than in the previous year. If I were asked to make a comment, I should tell the hon. Gentleman that there are 18 million households in this country and that if only 10 per cent. of them hold a few extra pounds of sugar over a few months it can have quite an impact on the retail position.
    Mr. Renton: On the question of the immediate sugar shortage, will the hon. Gentleman stop his hon. Friend the Minister of State for Prices and Consumer Protection from dealing with the problem as he did in a Written Answer on 4th November by saying:
    "The public can also help by not hoarding sugar".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November 1974, Vol. 880, c. 39.]
    That has the same quality of monumental truth as saying that there would not be a water shortage if it were to rain
    Will the hon. Gentleman personally and immediately read a letter that I shall send him this afternoon from a constituent who points out that she has been without any sugar for five—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think we need have the content of the letter today.
    Mr. Strang: The fact is that more sugar has moved into distribution in recent months than in the previous year. Of course there are short-term supply difficulties, and of course they have been exacerbated by recent industrial action at Silvertown, and of course my right hon. Friend is looking into this matter very closely indeed.
    Mr. Kershaw: Will the Minister of State realise that, for the first time since the repeal of the Corn Laws, it is possible for the British farmer to produce food more cheaply than it can be imported? Is it not a remarkable achievement by this Government to have produced at the same time extreme shortages, very high
    1230
    prices, very high subsidies, and ruination for farmers? Does that not demand a very high degree of incompetence, even from a Government such as this?
    Mr. Strang: We have serious difficulties at present in both these areas, but they did not arise in March this year. The beef and sugar situations owe a great deal to the failure of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right time to make proper arrangements for beef and sugar was when we were entering the Common Market.
    Mr. Pym: Does the Minister accept that his complacency is in stark contrast to the experience of the housewife? Does he also accept that the vagueness of the answer given by his right hon. Friend about future supplies could well lead to rationing, and that that would be the Government's responsibility?
    Mr. Strang: We utterly reject any suggestion of complacency. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government are doing everything they can and are considering every possible measure to improve the situation.
    Mr. Marshall: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Food Supplies
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the powers he possesses to introduce rationing of basic foodstuffs such as sugar.
    Mr. Strang: My right hon. Friend has no such powers.
    Mr. Tebbit: Would the Government consider taking such powers or, alternatively, altering their policies, as these powers may be needed unless the policies are altered? I assure the hon. Gentleman that I say this in no unpleasant terms. I have a good deal of sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State who has had the beef rug pulled out from underneath him and who has seen the Commonwealth producers rat on their obligations to supply us at reasonable prices. May I ask him again, if he does not intend to change policies on this matter, whether he will consider

    1231
    taking steps to make sure that the British housewife can get sugar somewhere, because she cannot today?
    Mr. Strang: The hon. Member has ranged widely. I agree with the first part of his supplementary question, but would add that rationing is a very serious matter. It would be a drastic and expensive step to take, and one which would be appropriate only in a situation in which we had a serious and prolonged shortage. That situation does not exist for any commodity at present.
    Mr. Woodall: Is my hon. Friend aware that unofficial rationing of sugar is now taking place in my constituency? I have evidence which I can produce to my hon. Friend of grocery concerns which are permitting only customers who purchase a specific amount of groceries to buy sugar? If he has no powers to introduce rationing, has he powers to stop this unofficial rationing?
    Mr. Strang: I can understand my hon. Friend's concern about the situation which exists in some shops in his constituency. Some housewives are, of course, having difficulty in obtaining sugar at present, but we must recognise that the amount of sugar going into distribution, and which has gone into distribution over the last few months, is up on last year. What we have at this time is an abnormal demand.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of my constituents—he knows this because I have written to his right hon. Friend about them—are demanding sugar rationing as the only fair way of dealing with this subject? Does he and his right hon. Friend accept that it is not only sugar that will need to be rationed shortly? It will soon be beef.
    Does he also accept that, although the Minister of State said that the present price showed the failure of intervention—since intervention brought prices in Belgium to £22, in France to £23, in the Netherlands to £19 and in West Germany to £21, while we are getting £12 without it—farmers in this country would be delighted to accept the "failure" of intervention if it were to be introduced?
    Mr. Strange: The question relates to sugar. I assure the hon. Lady that my
    1232
    right hon. Friend is doing everything within his power to secure adequate supplies for this country.

    Fishing Vessels (Operating Subsidies)
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the possible reintroduction of operating subsidies for British fishing vessels.
    Mr. Bishop: I have received an application from the British Trawlers' Federation for the reintroduction of some form of operating subsidy. This poses a number of difficult questions which need to be examined in depth. I cannot anticipate the outcome.
    Mr. Wall: Will the Minister bear it in mind that many of the long-term fuel bunkering contracts end in December, when the industry will be faced with the full effect of the increase in fuel prices? This will lead to ships being either sold or laid up this winter, which will mean a shortage of fish next spring, when we will also be short of meat and poultry. If the Minister does not wish to be the first Minister to introduce food rationing in peacetime, he has to do something about it now.
    Mr. Bishop: I recognise the problems to which the hon. Member has referred. We are looking at the matter with a sense of urgency. He will know that, after a couple of years of profitability, there are special problems this year, including fuel costs, and we shall bear that in mind.
    Mr. James Johnson: I do not deny that confidential figures submitted by the vessel owners to the Ministry may justify some form of subsidy under the old set-up, but is the Minister aware that the public in Hull and Humberside, working on the dock, and businessmen in the city, feel there is far too much secrecy about subsidies? Is he also aware that Mr. Charles Meek, Chairman of the White Fish Authority, whom no one can doubt on the subject, has been to Hull within the last few days? He says that although there may be need for some injection of money, he is not the man to say, as the owners are saying, that there will be a multi-million pound deficit next year. He says the opposite— that there will be an upturn in the industry next year.
    Mr. Bishop: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern for the industry. We are prepared to receive representations not only from the British Trawlers' Federation but from any other source, including those he has in mind.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Minister confirm that he has also received representations from the inshore fishing industry? Does he realise that more inshore fishermen are facing escalating fuel and gear costs on a scale which, without the capital backing of the trawler industry, they will find it very difficult to meet? Is he considering this matter with equal urgency?
    Mr. Bishop: Representations have been made by other authorities, but we have to take care that we consider those aspects which are national and those that are sectional. I recognise the sectional aspects to which the hon. Member has referred. If he wishes to suggest representations to us we shall consider them urgently.
    Mr. Prior: When will the Minister act? The Department has had knowledge of figures from the port of Lowestoft and from one or two other ports since last June and it has done nothing. Are we to wait for months and months on both agriculture and fishing—until we have rationing by price and by quantity—before the Department takes the matter seriously? Is it a fact that the Minister of Agriculture no longer has any power within the Government, that power has been taken over entirely by the Ministry of Food, which no longer has any interest in agriculture? When will he do the only honourable thing in the circumstances, which is to resign?
    Mr. Bishop: I surely do not have to remind hon. Gentlemen that my right hon. Friend and this Government have been in power only since March of this year—[Hon. Members: "Too long."] Hon. Members may say, "Too long," but we have been given a resurgence of power in the last few weeks. We are pursuing the matter urgently; there are real problems which have to be considered.

    Potatoes
    Mr. Jesselasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current price of new potatoes.
    Mr. Strang: At this time of year there are virtually no new potatoes on the market. Average retail prices of potatoes from the 1974 maincrop are 2½p to 3½p per pound.
    Mr. Jessel: New potatoes will not be the only thing that are not on the market. Pending next season's new supply, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that during the coming winter there will be an adequate supply of potatoes at reasonable prices?
    Mr. Strang: I think the hon. Member will be aware that there is a sensible quota system in this country for the production of potatoes. Inevitably the yields fluctuate from year to year. We are in the middle of the potato harvest, but as things stand we are confident that we should have adequate home-produced supplies from our present main crop.

    CBI AND TUC
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to meet the TUC and CBI.
    Mr. Duffyasked the Prime Minister when he expects to have talks with the TUC and the CBI on the maintenance of employment in industry.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply which I gave on 5th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton).
    Mr. Skinner: Now that we are mopping up some of the mess left by the last but one administration, does my right hon. Friend not agree that before he next meets the CBI he should compile a dossier of all those defaulting companies which failed to send in their returns in accordance with the counter-inflation policy of the Tory administration? Will he ask the CBI what he should do to take account of this position? Will he then—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Member for a supplementary question. He has already asked two.
    Mr. Skinner: I have not quite finished.
    Mr. Speaker: That is for me to judge. For once, I shall allow one more very brief question.
    Mr. Skinner: When my right hon. Friend meets the members of the TUC will he tell them that although we failed to get the £10 million refund that was taken from the charitable sources of the trade unions, it will be restored now that we have a clear majority in the House?
    The Prime Minister: In reply to my hon. Friend's question about what he considers to be defaults in relation to the Counter-Inflation Act—I presume that he is referring to the parts of the Act dealing with the Price Code—it must be a matter for the Price Commission to report upon, and for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look into these matters.
    With regard to the second question, which relates to a Finance Bill matter, I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement. [Interruption.] In case my answer was not clear, I was referring to my hon. Friend's concluding question about the TUC's £10 million. As it is obviously a Finance Bill matter, I cannot anticipate the Budget Statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Duffy: Despite last month's impressive drop in unemployment figures, is the Prime Minister aware that the recent approach by the TUC to his Government about job protection reflects the growing concern not merely in this country but throughout Europe, and does he not therefore think that, however severe the limitations upon him on Tuesday, the prime aim of the Chancellor must be to keep unemployment to a sustainable minimum?
    The Prime Minister: Again, without anticipating my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement, I remind my hon. Friend that in the statement on his July measures my right hon. Friend said that he would be introducing a Budget in November, and the avoidance of a lurch into unemployment would be a very high priority in his objectives.
    With regard to the earlier part of my hon. Friend's question about unemployment, he is quite right in saying that the problem which we face in this country, despite recent improvements in the unemployment situation over a short period, is a world problem and it is a matter for world statesmanship to ensure that we
    1236
    do not lurch into a recession as a result of the world oil situation.
    Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister's hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asked for an undertaking about the repayment of £10 million to the trade unions, to which the Prime Minister replied that this was a budgetary matter. It is surely only a budgetary matter if action is to be taken. Surely the Prime Minister can give the House and his hon. Friend a firm assurance that no action will be taken by the Government to attempt to refund the £10 million?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has already made clear—and I should have remembered the fact—that in view of the decision taken by Parliament in the previous short Parliament—the minority Parliament—the Government do intend to act in this Session on this matter. But I must leave any questions on this subject to my right hon Friend the Chancellor.
    Mr. Nigel Lawson: In the light of the Prime Minister's remarks a moment ago about unemployment, will he inform the House whether or not it is a part of the social contract to hand over to the trade unions de facto control of the monetary printing press?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am extremely surprised to hear any Conservative after the Conservative's record in prodigal printing—most of which was used for wrong purposes, which is why we are in the present mess—ask a question about printing presses.

    POPULATION
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Prime Minister if he will now appoint a Minister for population matters.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal has discharged this responsibility since last March and he is now assisted by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office. I see no reason to change this arrangement.
    Mrs. Short: Does my right hon. Friend not accept that there are many facets of this urgent problem that are not now

    1237
    being dealt with by the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen he has mentioned? Is he aware that there is an urgent need to train doctors and nurses to carry out these procedures? Is he further aware that there is an urgent need to educate both adults and young people into a responsible attitude to the creation of new life? Is he also aware that the work of the Family Planning Association, built up over many years, is now disappearing because of the reorganisation of the Health Service carried out by the previous Conservative Government, which makes it impossible for area health authorities to pay the FPA to act as agents on their behalf, and when they send patients to the general practitioners they are refused advice on family planning matters. Will—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has had four so far.
    The Prime Minister: In reply to the question about the responsibility of the health service, it is a fact that in this, and in other matters the changes made by the previous Government have caused a considerable degree of chaos, which is taking time to clear up. There is no doubt about that.
    On the main question of the four, my hon. Friend will be aware that, of course, the reason why we need the Lord Privy Seal is that the work in this area falls upon a number of Ministers in a number of Departments. That is why successive Governments have decided not to try to have one separate Minister with responsibility.
    This morning my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, as my hon. Friend will know, made a very important speech on this subject dealing with some of the issues which she has raised, including an announcement on improved assistance in some of these matters. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will be studying my right hon. Friend's speech. If she has not got a copy of it I am sure that my right hon. Friend will gladly send her one and place a copy in the Library.
    Sir D. Renton: Is the Prime Minister aware that the good work done by the Lord Privy Seal within the limited range of his responsibilities has been appreciated, but is he further aware that we
    1238
    appear to have in the country more people than we shall be able to feed? Will he therefore ensure that we have in the House a Minister with overall responsibility for dealing with questions of family planning, immigration and emigration?
    The Prime Minister: Everyone knows that the right hon. and learned Member has, over the years, pioneered a lot of the thinking on this matter and has been responsible for changes made by successive Governments.
    I do not think it would be right to have a single Minister responsible for all these matters. Immigration is clearly a Home Office matter, so I do not think it would be possible to do this. In fact, the consideration that leads us to keep these matters in separate Departments is probably the main reason for my having to answer questions on it today.
    I should like to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the tribute he paid to the Lord Privy Seal. I am sure that, within it, he intended to pay a tribute to the very good work done by my noble Friend in the world conference held during the summer.
    Sir D. Renton: Yes.
    Dr. Phipps: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, had the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) had his way many years ago, the great majority of Members on the Government benches would not be here today? Does he wonder whether that is the purpose of his policy?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) was very fully answered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services a few days ago in Liverpool. I certainly do not intend to comment on any of the speeches of that kind from the right hon. Gentleman or any of his right hon. Friends. As the House knows, in my capacity as joint president of the "National Amalgamated Trade Union of Party Leaders"—all of whom may God preserve, Mr. Speaker—I am very anxious not to intervene in any of these matters.
    Mr. Prior: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, important though population matters are, it is even more important that we should be able to sustain the population that we have, or are likely to have,

    1239
    and unless we have a radical change in our agriculture and fishing policies over the next few weeks we shall not be in a position to support our population?
    The Prime Minister: I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman in expressing concern on these matters, which I think inspired a great number of the questions before I came in a few minutes ago. The right hon. Gentleman speaks very differently now from the way in which he spoke in those famous broadcasts, "Weekend with Prior", at one o'clock every Sunday. He will know how much of the chaos we inherited, both here and in the shambles in the CAP, are due to right hon. Members opposite.

    INFLATION
    Mr. Rostasked the Prime Minister which of Her Majesty's Ministers is responsible for policies to curb inflation.
    The Prime Minister: All members of the Government are responsible for carrying out our policies to curb inflation.
    Mr. Rost: Will the Prime Minister tell us which of his Ministers he believes is making the most progress? Is it the Secretary of State for Industry, with his massive, expensive and irrelevant programme for nationalisation? Is it the Secretary of State for Employment, with his mythical social contract? Or is it the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose efforts are turning stagflation into slumpflation?
    The Prime Minister: I thought that was very good, and made up for the great frustration the hon. Gentleman showed when he was not called yesterday.
    I do not keep a league table in these matters. I recall that last April the important thing was not the performance of any individual but the fact that Liverpool won the Cup.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that the City financiers, the bankers, all the Press and their other supporters, particularly on the Opposition side, have long been complaining of the allegedly high increases given to the low-paid workers of this country? Will he consider the fact that the City of London, with the smallest geographical area and the lowest number of residents, is paying
    1240
    its chief executive officers £2,000 to £3,000 a year extra—no one can ascertain the exact amount? Which Minister would look into this grossly inflationary payment?
    The Prime Minister: Now that my hon. Friend has brought this matter to my attention I shall certainly look into it. I find it rather more revealing, particularly after some of the statistical quibbles that we have had from right hon. Gentleman opposite in recent weeks, to see that the report of the Price Commission, which they set up and which operates under rules that they laid down, points out that whereas in the last three months of the Conservative Government their index, based on prenotification of price increases, showed an annual rate of interest of 23 per cent., in the three months to August that rate has been cut to 9½ per cent.
    Mr. Marten: In order to cut down the element of inflation which is attributable to sugar, will the Prime Minister dispatch the Secretary of State for Trade to Australia—he did very well when he went there recently—and get him to do a deal with the Australians for 300,000 tons of sugar, which will also help employment in the sugar refining industry in this country?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that my right hon. Friend did extremely well on his trade mission to both Australia and New Zealand recently. I understand that some questions on sugar have been answered this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman, none better, will know how much of the problems—not all of it, with the present world shortage—arises from the totally inadequate and humiliating terms of the Lancaster House conference and the aura à Coeur and the total failure to put it in the protocol. I am sure that he will understand that. [Interruption.] I agree that it was not an agreement. It was claimed to be. I am talking about the sugar situation resulting from the 1971 terms, which were a disgrace to this country and have caused the utmost problems for the Commonwealth which is now seeking other solutions. On the detailed question and the hon. Gentleman's concern, we have every intention of getting all the sugar that we can from Australia, either through Community arrangements or direct.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not 'intervene during Prime Minister's Questions to raise this point of order, and I am sorry for not having given you notice of it. Would you consider at the start of a new Parliament making it clear to hon. Members that, particularly during Prime Minister's Questions but at Question Time generally, those few who attempt to pose five or six questions by making short speeches will find it difficult to catch your eye in future? This might assist in getting through more Questions during Question Time.
    Mr. Speaker: That is certainly a valuable suggestion. I think that it would also be helpful if their colleagues would tell such hon. Members what they think of them.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to give the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 11TH NOVEMBER—Motion on the Channel Tunnel Bill.
Debate on EEC documents on sugar (Nos. R/1900/73 and R/1957/74).
TUESDAY, 12TH NOVEMBER—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget Statement.
WEDNESDAY, 13TH NOVEMBER and THURSDAY 14TH NOVEMBER—Completion of the debate on the Budget Statement.
FRIDAY, 15TH NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the National Theatre Bill.
Second Reading of the Education Bill.
MONDAY, 18TH NOVEMBER—There is a change from what I announced last week.
Second Reading of the Housing Rents and Subsidies Bill.
Motion on Norton Villiers Triumph Limited.
Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House take note of the fact that the
1242
whole House will be grateful to him for taking cognisance of the recommendations that we made to the Government that, instead of a two-day debate on the Budget, there should be a three-day debate? I believe that this is both desirable and necessary. We appreciate the arrangement that has been made.
Concerning the business for Monday, I am sure that the House will want a considerable time to debate the EEC documents on sugar, because I presume that it will be a wide-ranging debate. Whether we can have a proper discussion on the EEC documents on sugar depends on how much time is taken on the motion on the Channel Tunnel Bill.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, on the business for Monday 18th November, which he has just announced—namely, Second Reading of the Housing Rents and Subsidies Bill—the Government intend to try to insert into the Bill in the form of amendments the substantial statement made by the Secretary of State for the Environment yesterday regarding penalties on councillors and the arrangements for the reclamation of the money through either rents or rates?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman note, that in view of the Government's complacency, particularly that of the Minister of Agriculture, about the agricultural situation in this country and the unsatisfactory replies that we got in the debate on the Address, we shall want a debate on agriculture at the earliest possible moment after the Minister of Agriculture returns from his discussions in Brussels, which I understand will he on Monday and Tuesday of the following week?
Mr. Short: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Budget debate.
The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct about the importance of the consultative documents on sugar. They set out the Commission's proposals on the Community's sugar policy, both internal and external, to the Council of Ministers. I hope that the motion on the Channel Tunnel Bill will be got through at an early stage. Of course, the rule will be suspended for an hour and a half. I hope that there will be time for a good

1243
debate on the two motions, because I agree that they are extremely important.
I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks on his third point. The legislation dealing with the Clay Cross situation, which my right hon. Friend announced yesterday, will not appear in the Housing Rents and Subsidies Bill. There will be separate legislation.
Finally, I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about agriculture.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Secretary of State for Industry to come to the House at an early date and give us an account of what the Government are doing to try to save the HS 146, and, with it, the British civil aircraft industry, from the wrecking tactics of the spiteful and irresponsible Sir Arnold Hall?
Mr. Short: I understand my hon. Friend's feelings on this matter. I will certainly pass on what he said to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. David Steel: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement next week on the position in the Scottish teachers' strike? Is he aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House, together with the employing local authorities, regard their revised demand for a flat-rate increase before Christmas as reasonable and that we believe that a statement ought to be made to the House?
Mr. Short: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend heard what was said by the hon. Gentleman. This situation is causing great concern, and I am certain that my right hon. Friend will consider what has been said.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my right hon. Friend now tell us when we are to have the debate on the Sandford Report on National Parks and on the report on the release of defence lands which was earlier promised for a date in October?
Mr. Short: I am aware of that, but we were all busily occupied elsewhere in October. I still bear in mind my hon. Friend's useful suggestion that we should combine the two reports, Nugent and Sandford, in one debate. I will certainly arrange it as early as possible.
Mr. Gow: In view of the discussions which are taking place between the British and South African Governments about the future of the Simonstown Agreement, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he will find time for a debate on that agreement before those discussions are concluded?
Mr. Short: There will be a one-day debate on defence before Christmas. That will give hon. Members an opportunity to debate the matter.
Mr. John Mendelson: Regarding the proposed sugar agreement, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend recalls being in the Chamber on Tuesday when demands were made for a debate on the alternative proposals of a five-year sugar agreement with Australia or the proposals made by the Common Market authorities? Does he agree that there ought to be a debate in the House before the Minister of Agriculture finally commits us to either of those proposals?
Does my right hon. Friend recall that in an earlier Parliament, when we were in Opposition, we, as a united Opposition, pressed for a debate on the size of lorries to be admitted to this country before the then Minister was in a position to commit us at the Common Market Ministers' meeting? Ought we not to proceed in the same way as we then insisted that we should proceed?
Mr. Short: On the specific point about sugar, I have announced a debate on two EEC documents. They are extremely wide and will certainly give an opportunity to debate the matter that my hon. Friend wishes to debate. On the general question, he will know that today I have put on the Order Paper a motion setting up the Select Committee on Procedure, which is to look at the whole question of how we deal with EEC matters in relation to the House.
Sir P. Bryan: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Attorney-General to come to the House nest week to make a statement explaining to the House how he reconciles his past advice against any reprieve for the Clay Cross councillors with yesterday's Government statement?
Mr. Short: It would be a sorry day for Parliament if we allowed Mr. Bernard Levin to determine our procedure.
Mr. Jay: On sugar, is my right hon. Friend aware that what we need before Monday's debate, and what we have not yet had, is a full statement not merely of the EEC arrangement but of the details of the Australian offer?
Mr. Short: I shall certainly convey my right hon. Friend's views to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and ask him to be as forthcoming as he can about that and other matters concerned with sugar in our debate on the two EEC documents.
Mr. Peyton: I watt to put two points to the Leader of the House. First, will he dissociate himself from the totally improper remarks concerning Sir Arnold Hall made by his hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck)? Secondly, will he reflect very deeply on the fact that Mr. Bernard Levin never gives such bad advice to the Government or to anyone else as the Government provide for themselves? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Gwynfor Evans.
Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed Early-Day Motion No. 14 on the Order Paper, concerning the proposed closure of the East Moors steelworks? Is he aware of the very grave importance of this issue to the capital city of Cardiff, involving, as it does, as many as 10,000 men, who would be thrown out of work if these works were closed? In view of its importance, will the right hon. Gentleman seek an early opportunity of allowing us to debate the matter?
[That this House considers that the closure of the East Moors steelworks would have the most serious consequences for the economic and social life of the city of Cardiff in that many other businesses would be placed in jeopardy and many other work people would become unemployed; and urges the Government to give the closest attention to those consequences in its current review of the British Steel Corporation's plant closure programme..]
Mr. Short: My noble Friend Lord Beswick has received many representations about this matter. He is considering them as part of his review, and we had better await the outcome of that review.
Mr. Stoddart: Has the Leader of the House seen Early-Day Motion No. 28 dealing with Plessey Company's sacking, at a moment's notice, of many of my constituents? May I have an assurance from him that next week he will announce the early introduction of a Bill on employment protection?
[That this House condemns the Plessey Company policy of dismissing at a moment's notice workers in their Swindon establishments and declaring redundancies without previous notice to or consultation with appropriate trade unions, believes that such cavalier and inhumane treatment of working people can only intensify bitterness and divisiveness and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to bring forward, urgently, legislation which will render such action impossible in the future as well as giving priority to taking into public ownership wholly or partly those industries which, like Plessey, derive a large part of their work from Government sources.]
Mr. Short: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says, and he can be assured that the legislation will be brought forward at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Kershaw: In view of what the Leader of the House has just said, will he nevertheless recognise the very real anxiety in all parts of the country about the bills of indemnity which the Government appear to be about to bring in for crooked councillors? Now, from what—
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You know, Mr. Speaker, that I very rarely seek to interrupt proceedings—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is absolutely true and will be on the records of the House, in spite of the girlish laughter from the Opposition Benches.
Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for an hon. Member to make an accusation which clearly implies criminal culpability—[An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] All right, hon. Members may go on record. I am asking Mr. Speaker whether it is in order under the protection of the privilege of this House for an hon. Member to make an accusation of criminal culpability against elected representatives on a local authority within the United Kingdom and

1247
whether the hon. Member ought not to be asked to withdraw the accusation.
Mr. Skinner: Let the hon. Gentleman say it outside the House.
Mr. Speaker: I regret very much this kind of imputation, either against individuals or against bodies, either inside or outside the House. My jurisdiction applies only to the House. It would be quite improper to make such a suggestion against a Member of the House. I am afraid, however, that what the hon. Member said was not out of order.
Hon. Members: "Withdraw."
Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the first place, I should like to ask whether it is in order to raise a point of order during Business Questions. On the second point, Mr. Speaker, if it is thought undesirable that I should call these councillors crooked, I call them criminal instead.
Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Kershaw: Is it not further the case—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will calm down. It is perfectly in order to raise a point of order during Question Time. It is not really desirable but it is perfectly in order, and it depends, really, on the provocation. However, I would hope that the House will now proceed.
Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret delaying the House, but as some of the councillors to whom the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) has referred are constituents of mine, including justices of the peace, I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, without wanting dictation from the Chair—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shut up."]—or hysterical interruptions—whether you will reconsider the matter of what an hon. Member may call people who are guilty of no crime.
Mr. Speaker: Again, I would ask the House to take this matter calmly. One hears all sorts of imputations made, for example from one side against businessmen. I regret them equally. I think that it is wrong for people to use the privi-
1248
lege of this House to make imputations against any section of the community. I hope that we can now move on.
Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] May I have an answer to my question? In view of what the Prime Minister said this afternoon—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—that he proposes also to introduce some kind of indemnity for law-defying trade unions—if I may put it like that on this occasion—is not the Leader of the House aware that this is a very grave constitutional legal situation which the House will want to debate?
Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman's terminology is beneath contempt. The councillors did what they did. They were driven to do what they did because of the vicious and divisive legislation of the previous Government. With regard to the question, I have nothing to add to what the Prime Minister said.
Mr. Burden: Will the Leader of the House give some indication of when the O'Brien Report is likely to be debated?
Mr. Short: I am very sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that I cannot yet give an indication, but I have been pursuing this matter vigorously since the exchanges last week. I hope to be able to write to the hon. Gentleman shortly about the matter. I know of his great interest in it.
Mr. Lipton: Does the Leader of the House think that one day will be adequate for the Second Reading of the Housing Rents and Subsidies Bill, with all its complicated algebraic formulae? Will it not take the Minister in charge of the Bill almost all day to explain the Bill to hon. Members?
Mr. Short: All our legislation is entirely explicable and easily understood. I am sure that one day will be adequate to debate it.
Mr. Fell: While I well understand that it is unlikely that we shall be able to have a debate next week upon the televising of the House, may I have some assurance, nevertheless, that the debate on televising the House will take place fairly soon—at least soon enough so that the memory of the last occasion on which the House was televised will be clear in the minds of Members?
Mr. Short: That is a very fair point. I certainly give the House that assurance. The debate will be held very soon, certainly before Christmas.
Mr. Speaker: I have one thing to add to what I said on the recent points of order, which had escaped my memory. I have now had the opportunity to refresh it. On page 418 of Erskine May it says:
"Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language."
Mrs. Hayman: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to Early-Day Motion No. 5, concerning the Hawker-Siddeley 146 project, which stands in my name and the names of many of my hon. Friends? Since hundreds of jobs are involved this week, next week and in succeeding weeks, since thousands of jobs are involved in the aviation industry and elsewhere over the next decade, and since the whole future of the civil aerospace industry in Britain is at stake on this one project, will he, in spite of the pressures of time upon him, make an opportunity for a debate on the subject on the Floor of the House?
[That this House deplores the unilateral management decision to cancel the Hawker-Siddeley 146, the only new civil project being currently developed by the British aircraft industry and involving the future of 20,000 jobs; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to take immediate emergency action to rescue the aircraft and to fulfil the manifesto commitment to take the aerospace industry into public ownership as soon as possible.]
Mr. Short: The Government are deeply concerned about the future of the project in the light of the company's decision. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry said he was hoping to meet management and workers concerned and will make a statement to the House when he has considered those meetings.
Mr. Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You were kind enough a moment ago to refresh your memory on what had been said during the points of order that were raised a few moments ago on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). During the points of order about what he said there was a certain amount of bad temper, naturally enough. Would it not be grossly unfair, however, for my
1250
hon. Friend to be accused of something of which he was not guilty?
Mr. Speaker: I can relieve the hon. Member's mind at once. My remark was directed not to any one hon. Member but to many hon. Members who frequently offend against this rule.
Mr. Fell: Further to that point—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take further points of order at the end of these questions.
Sir F. Bennett: May I refer to the Clay Cross matter in a less contentious fashion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because for once I wish to be heard? Yesterday's statement was very complex. It is difficult for some people to understand exactly how the burden will be redistributed fairly on those who may or may not have gained some advantage in the past. I do not know whether the Leader of the House was looking bewildered or simply unhappy, but he did not seem to be taking in fully what the statement was about. May we, therefore, have considerable time between publication of the Bill to deal with this matter and its Second Reading, or may we have a White Paper published beforehand setting out the details of a complex issue which has undercurrents of great importance to the constitution of this country?
Mr. Short: The period of time between publication of the Bill and Second Reading is normally about a fortnight. I will bear in mind what the hon. Member said. If it is the general wish, we would allow more time, but there is no need for a White Paper. The matter is fully set out in HANSARD. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Member said.
Mr. Spearing: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early-Day Motion No. 6 concerning the World Food Conference? The motion has been signed by more than 40 hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement by the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister for Overseas Development at the termination of the conference, and, if possible, a debate later on?
[That this House, believing that, in view of the seriousness of the world food crisis, the response of Her Majesty's Government to the proposals presented for

1251
consideration at the forthcoming World Food Conference is disappointing, calls on Her Majesty's Government to make a more positive response to this important world conference.]
Mr. Short: There was an opportunity to raise this matter last Thursday, but I shall certainly pass on the point raised by my hon. Friend.
Mr. John Davies: The Leader of the House is certainly aware of the Second Special Report of the European Secondary Legislation Committee which in the last Parliament recommended the new Parliament to set up as rapidly as possible a repeat of that Committee because of the growing amount of work. I am informed that the backlog with which any new successor Committee will be faced is greater than that which it faced at its inception last May. Has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of introducing an early motion to set up a Committee in order that it may get on with its work?
Mr. Short: The motion is on the Order Paper today. The names are not printed because we are still waiting for more names. I have discussed this matter with the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), and I hope that what we have done will help. I had thought that perhaps the Procedure Committee should consider the mater first, but, if it is the general wish of the House, we shall be willing to set up a scrutiny committee immediately. If hon. Members have views about the matter perhaps they will discuss them with me.
Mr. Kinnock: How soon are we likely to debate the National Health Service so that we may consider the threat posed by consultants, who are the greatest beneficiaries and the greatest profiteers from the service and now seek deliberately to sabotage it?
Mr. Short: I am afraid that it will not be next week, but I shall bear the point in mind.
Mr. Emery: Will the Leader of the House consider, if not next week, certainly in the immediate future the reports of the economic planning councils which are made specifically to the Government, and debates on them? I ask specifically for a debate on the report of
1252
the South-West Economic Planning Council, which has caused a wide division of views between the lower part of the South-West and the areas around Bristol It will do neither the Government's advisory committees nor the work of the planning councils any good if time is not found to debate the reports.
Mr. Short: I have a great deal of sympathy on this point. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), who is not in her place today, has raised the matter on a number of occasions. We must try to find some way of debating the question. If we do not discuss it in the Chamber, a possibility would be a regional committee or something like that. I shall look at this and discuss it with the hon. Member if he has any ideas to put forward.
Mr. Watt: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to Early-Day Motion No. 18, which is signed by Members of all parties? Does he not agree that the emergency facing the livestock industry is far greater than the emergency of digging a hole between England and France? Should we not have an early emergency debate on the livestock industry?
[That this House, aware of the desperate financial plight of farmers in the livestock section of agriculture, whose situation has been aggravated by the fodder shortage and the appalling weather during harvest time in the uplands and hills, calls upon the Prime Minister to intervene personally, with a view to introducing measures to alleviate their distress and to restore a measure of confidence to the industry.]
Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is aware of the concern about the beef industry and is urgently considering all the representations made to him in the debate last Thursday.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Under the last Tory Government I and a number of other hon. Members tried—even to the extent of going to the then Prime Minister—to get Ministers to reply to letters from Members of Parliament in periods under five, six, eight and in some instances 12 weeks. Will my right hon. Friend advise all Ministers that they should send a formal acknowledgment of receipt within 10 days. Will he tell them that if an interim reply cannot be sent within two or three weeks a reason should be given,

1253
and certainly a substantive reply should be sent within four or five weeks?
Mr. Short: I repeat what I said in the last Parliament, that if my hon. Friend has any specific examples he must let me have them and I will investigate the matter—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Look at your files; they are full of examples.
Mr. Short: I shall certainly do that.
Mr. Wyn Roberts: May we have an assurance that there will be a statement next week by the Minister of Agriculture on the urgent consideration that is promised for the reimposition of the 60-day waiting period for Irish cattle to qualify for the slaughter premium? This would obviously help to alleviate mounting tension in the cattle ports.
Mr. Short: I cannot promise a statement but I will pass on to my right hon. Friend the hon. Member's point, which is a most important one.
Mr. Molloy: In answer to earlier questions my right hon. Friend said that the sugar debate would be wide-ranging. Will he consider asking the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will endeavour between now and the debate to see the warehousemen, the refiners and the distributors of sugar so that he may get some factual appreciation of the current situation? I am sure that would assist the debate.
Mr. Short: My hon. Friend will find, when the debate takes place, that my right hon. Friend has already done this.
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: In view of certain remarks by the chief executive of the British Steel Corporation on industrial disputes and since the corporation is now in danger of losing blast furnace capacity, will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Industry to come to the House next week and explain the matter fully?
Mr. Short: I shall see that my right hon. Friend is made aware of the point.
Dr. Phipps: In view of the support for Early-Day Motion No. 24, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity when arranging the timetable for the proposed legislation to ban hare coursing to extend
1254
the Bill so as to include other forms of blood sports, so that they can all be banned at the same time?
[That this House welcomes the Prime Minister's statement that time will be found this session for a Bill to ban hare coursing, but believes that the same time would prove sufficient for a Bill to ban all forms of blood sports; and urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce such a Bill in its stead.]
Mr. Short: I am afraid that one step at a time is enough for me. If we can get the legislation on hare coursing through the House during this Session it will be a major step forward, and we could then look towards dealing with other sports.
Mr. Lane: Will the Leader of the House, instead of remaining silent, now accept the invitation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and dissociate himself from the extremely offensive remarks made earlier about Sir Arnold Hall?
Mr. Short: No, Sir.
Mr. Farr: Is the Leader of the House able to tell the House when we shall discuss the referendum on the Common Market? How will it be presented to the House? Can he say whether it will be in the form of a Bill, or a debate, or a Green Paper? Can he give some idea when this matter is likely to be forth-coming?
Mr. Short: If the Government decide to have a referendum—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"]—legislation will be brought before the House and will, if the House agrees, receive the Royal Assent in time for a referendum to be held by October next year.
Miss Maynard: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 13, in my name, calling for the abolition of the agricultural tied cottage system? Seventy names have now been appended to this early—day motion. Can my right hon. Friend say when this matter will be dealt with?
[That this House urges the Government to abolish the agricultural tied cottage system in this session.]
Mr. Short: I understand my hon. Friend's views on this matter; she has

1255
fought for it during the whole of her adult life, and I pay great tribute to her for this. This matter is part of Labour Party policy. We have so far announced our programme only for the first Session of what I hope will be a five-year Parliament, so my hon. Friend should not give up hope. I hope that proposals on this will appear in a Queen's Speech early in the life of this Parliament.
Mr. Hastings: Following what was said earlier about the Hawker-Siddeley 146, does the Leader of the House recognise that many of us on this side of the House regard this as an urgent matter for debate, not least because we realise that it is the uncertainty which arises as the result of the intention to nationalise which is the real threat to this project?
Mr. Short: I agreed with, and had a great deal of sympathy with, the hon. Gentleman until the last few words of his question. We share his concern about the project and the decision of the company on it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is willing and anxious to discuss this matter with both the company and the workers. When my right hon. Friend has completed his review and has anything to announce he will come to the House and announce it.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Can the Leader of the House help us? There may have been a misunderstanding. He said earlier, when questioned about European secondary legislation, that he had tabled a motion for a Committee to be set up, but the only motion on the Order Paper appears to be that relating to a Committee on Procedure. Has a wrong heading been put on this?
Mr. Short: No, it is a Committee on procedure. If the hon. Gentleman reads the motion he will see that it says:
"…to consider what alterations, if any are desirable for the more efficient despatch of the Public Business of the House in relation to European subordinate legislation…".
Mr. Adley: The Leader of the House used the word "divisive" in his description of legislation the results of which may be disregarded. This was also his view when he was Shadow Leader of the House. May we on this side of the House now take it that if my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), as
1256
Shadow Leader of the House, decides that any legislation of the present Government is divisive, people may be encouraged to break the law? Does the Leader of the House realise the state into which he is leading the country?
Mr. Short: I have known the present Shadow Leader of the House for a long time, and I am sure that he will not feel inhibited in any way in what he says.
Mr. Peyton: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being right for almost the first time this afternoon.
Mr. Short: That remark is just about as profound as most of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Churchill: In view of the fact that the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister and certain of their right hon. Friends in the Government know all about profiteering, will the Leader of the House now dissociate himself and the Government from the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) about hospital consultatnts, who do so much for the people of this country?
Mr. Short: There is nothing that I can add to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of profiteering.
Mr. Onslow: Can the Leader of the House explain why the motion relating to the Select Committee concerned with the declaration of Members' interests provides that the Select Committee should consist of 14 Members while only 12 names are shown on the Order Paper? What is meant by the injunction in the motion:
"That the Committee shall report…within the shortest reasonable period…
I hope that the Leader of the House can show the House that there is no intention to discourage Members who may wish to give evidence to the Select Committee—like the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)—from doing so?
Mr. Short: There is no such intention. The Select Committee sat a long time during the last Parliament. We have not yet got all the names; further names can be added when they are received. One former member of the Select Committee is no longer a Member of the House. We were anxious to get the Select Committee's report as quickly as possible and so

1257
we have put this matter on the Order Paper.
Mr. Percival: I have a clear question and I hope that I shall get a clear answer. Can the Leader of the House say when the Phillimore Report will be published, and can we expect a debate on this before Christmas?
Mr. Short: I cannot give any estimate about that without notice.
Mr. Costain: We had gained the impression from the Leader of the House that we were to discuss the question of seat belts, but he has today made no mention of this being included in the business for next Monday.
Mr. Short: I am sorry about this, but it was necessary to rearrange the business for Monday. This matter will reappear shortly, and, as we have said, there will be a free vote on it.
Dr. Glyn: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 4, which is concerned with giving better opportunities for back-bench speakers? Will he consider a debate on this and other procedural points? Secondly, will he consider re-establishing the Committee on Procedure?
[That this House considers that, in order to increase the opportunities for back-benchers to contribute to proceedings, the occupant of the Chair should have the power to limit the time taken by back-bench speakers to 15 minutes in any debate, except by leave of the House.]
Mr. Short: The first point is a matter for the Chair. On the second point my answer is "yes".
Mr. Speaker: I allowed business questions to go on for a long time on this occasion because I had regard for the business before the House today. It must not be taken as a precedent that business questions will always last for 35 minutes.
I shall now deal with points of order. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) is first.
Mr. Fell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order, you will recall that earlier my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) made some remarks about the Clay Cross coun-
1258
cillors, to which exception was taken by —[Interruption.] Everybody knows precisely what I am talking about. The remarks were taken exception to by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). [Interruption.] Yes, indeed. If the House and hon. Members on the Government side will allow me, I wish to raise this matter on a point of order because I believe that a wrong impression will have gone out from the House as a result of the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Penistone. There was earlier an immediate roar of support for the hon. Member for Penistone. [Interruption.] It was absolute nonsense. We are here to protect the rights of individuals, and in a small way I want to protect the rights of the Clay Cross councillors, who are friends of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It is now clear that they were led up the garden in the biggest possible way by the leaders of the Labour Party. This was the reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) tried to raise the point.
Mr. Speaker: This has nothing remotely to do with the Chair.
Mr. Fell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, Sir, you did take very seriously the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), and you interrupted the proceedings a little later to give a further opinion on what had happened. I thought that you were giving the benefit of the doubt against the Clay Cross councillors rather than against certain Members of this House.
Mr. Speaker: All I did was to quote from Erskine May, and I shall do so again:
"Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language."
I wish all Members in all quarters of the House would remember that more frequently.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A little earlier I was rebuked explicitly by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), and implied by you, Sir, for something I said which was taken, and probably rightly taken, as a personal attack on somebody outside the House. I did not intend what I said as a personal attack. The phrase I

1259
used was "the wrecking tactics of the spiteful and irresponsible Sir Arnold Hall". What I meant to say was "the spiteful and irreponsible wrecking tactics of Sir Arnold Hall", which is not the same thing.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman has made the matter much clearer, I am sure we shall be grateful.

BILL PRESENTED
  OFFSHORE PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Secretary Ross, supported by Mr. Secretary Varley, Mr. Bruce Millan, and Mr. Edmund Dell, presented a Bill to provide for the acquisition by the Secretary of State of land in Scotland for purposes relating to exploration for and exploitation of offshore petroleum; to enable the Secretary of State to carry out works and facilitate operations for those purposes; to regulate such operations in certain sea areas; to provide for the reinstatement of land used for those purposes; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 8.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  GENERAL RATE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.14 p.m.
  The Minister for Planning and Local Government (Mr. John Silkin): I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The scope of the Bill is very narrow and, despite my natural good temper and moderation, I know that Mr. Speaker would rule me out of order if I were to go too far from the technical explanation of the Bill itself and how it had arisen. Its purpose is simply to postpone the 1978 revaluation. It does not attempt to deal with the wider issue of the rating system in general. This is being examined in detail by the Committee of Inquiry into Local Government Finance under Mr. Frank Layfield. We shall have to await that committee's report before we can take decisions about changes in the present system.
  The Bill itself contains two clauses. Clause 1(1) inserts 1981 after 1973 in Section 68(1) of the General Rate Act 1967. This has the effect of postponing the 1978 revaluation and starting the statutory five-year cycle again from 1981.
  Clause 1(2) gives the Secretary of State power by order to make further post-ponements one year at a time—1982 for 1981 and, later, 1983 for 1982. But this would be subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament, and this is provided for in Clause 1(3). Clause 2 merely sets out the short title and provides that the Act extends only to England and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is considering the position in Scotland.
  Our modern rating system derives in the main from the Poor Relief Act of 1601, the purpose of which was stated in Section 1 of that Act to be
  "To raise weekly, or otherwise, by taxation of every inhabitant, parson, vicar and other, and every occupier of lands, houses, tythes impropriate or appropriations of tythes, coalmines or saleable underwoods in the said parish, in such competent sum and sums of money as they shall think fit".

  1261
  The House will see that all the socio-economic groups of 1601 were represented.
  During the ensuing centuries the statute was modified somewhat—not least by Rex v. Andover, 1777, in which Lord Mansfield said:
  "It would make the Poor Laws very oppressive if a man is to be taxed to the extent of his whole personal estate and income "
  —a view on local income tax which many people today might dispute.
  Local income tax, together with every other source of local government finance, will no doubt again be considered by the Layfield Committee. It is because the Committee is making so wide-ranging an inquiry into local government finance, and because its recommendations will come reasonably at the end of next year, that this Bill is needed today.
  The time required to enable the Lay-field Committee to report and for the appropriate consideration to be given to that report means that if the committee were to recommend a new way of financing local government, or indeed a new basis for valuation, this could not be put into effect by 1978. Indeed, work for the 1978 valuation in the normal way should be starting now. Although revaluations are supposed to occur every five years, they remind one of nothing so much as the traditional story of the painting of the Forth Bridge which, we are told, never ends.
  In the present instance, apart from the normal difficulty of too few valuers examining too many rateable values, there is added an impossible time scale. We cannot reasonably expect Layfield to report until the very end of 1975. There must then be a proper period for consideration of that report, and a further period for legislation, should that be necessary. To set in motion the list preparations for a 1978 revaluation which may never be put into effect would be an irresponsible waste.
  I must admit that I might have been a great deal more concerned at asking the House to approve this postponement if I were not aware of the history of previous revaluations. The provision for five-year regular revaluations first appeared in the Rating and Revaluation Act 1925. Between that date and 1948,
  1262
  for various reasons, there were only two revaluations instead of the four that one would have expected.
  Mr. Churchill: There was a war.
  Mr. Silkin: That may account for part of the explanation. Following the Local Government Act of 1948, new valuation lists should have come into operation in 1952. But the then Conservative Government, under the hon. Gentleman's grandfather, after its election in 1951 postponed the revaluation until 1953 because of disagreements on the basis assessment.
  In 1953, however, that Government changed their mind again, and provided for a new valuation to operate from 1956. In 1959, the next Conservative Government again postponed revaluation—this time until 1963—because of the lack of rental evidence available in time. And in 1966 the Labour Government postponed the revaluation due in 1968 until 1973, because of
  "a shortage of valuers and the increasing commitments of the valuation office".
  Therefore, I have a number of very respectable precedents for my action today.
  Mr. Arthur Jones: Has there been a revaluation under a Socialist administration?
  Mr. Silkin: I think that I might need notice of that question. What I can say is that since 1925, regrettably—I do not expect the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) to agree with me—we have had far too many Conservative Governments. Incidentally, I know that the House will accept from me that on this occasion it is only the existence of the Layfield inquiry and our intention to act upon it which has made this postponement necessary.
  Nevertheless, I know that there are those in local authority circles who are not happy at the proposed postponement. I am sorry if there are also those who feel that we should have consulted the local authorities. I understand how sensitive local authorities can be on this point. Indeed, when I was shadowing my present Department in Opposition, my speeches alluded to lack of consultation so frequently that I never really

  1263
  felt I had got into my stride until I had made the point.
  On this occasion we were well aware of the views of the local authorities and of the opposition many felt to revaluation. We felt, therefore, that what was required on this occasion was not so much consultation as reasonable notice of our decision, and this notice was accordingly given to them in September—two months ago.
  As to the local authorities' arguments against postponement, I assure them that the Government's proposals on land and the obvious requirement for valuers which they would entail had nothing to do with this decision.
  The White Paper on Land (Cmnd. 5730) certainly accepts in paragraph 36 that there is a shortage of skilled manpower. But, as the House will see from the Explanatory Memorandum of this Bill, postponing a revaluation will, alas, not produce a single additional professional valuer for the urgent and popular task of bringing development land into community ownership. It will not, as the Memorandum shows, result in any quantifiable staff saving, and will simply reduce for the time being the requirement for non-professional staff—a very different matter from supplying valuers to do another task.
  A criticism more often heard is that, by postponing revaluation, we are eroding the rate base of rating authorities—in other words, that, whereas extra rateable value would have accrued to them in 1978, this extra value will not now accrue until 1981 or later. I find this argument somewhat difficult to follow. Certainly rate base is increased when a new rateable value is created, but merely increasing the rateable value of existing property through revaluation does not affect the rate base. Postponement of revaluation has no effect on the taxing capacity of rating authorities. Presentationally, it may look better that the rate in the pound is lower: the amount that the ratepayer has to pay, however, is not affected.
  Having said that, I think that there is one criticism which has more substance in it. It is true that the postponement of revaluation causes anomalies as between one ratepayer and another.
  1264
  Since the rateable values are not up to date, postponement means that some ratepayers bear a greater share of the rate burden than perhaps they ought, while others bear less. A good example of this problem is illustrated by Section 21 of the Local Government Act 1974 which our predecessors passed—though I make no point on that—which provides that, from 1st April this year, the installation of central heating or an improvement to property that would result in a rateable value increase less than a prescribed limit shall be disregarded until the next revaluation. It is true that the effect of this is that those who enjoy the concession will enjoy it for longer because the revaluation is postponed, and therefore they will pay a lower share of the rate burden than is absolutely fair. All this I concede.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: This anomaly about the installation of central heating is one of the matters which have been brought to my attention. As the right hon. Gentleman is postponing the revaluation, will he instruct valuation officers that people who have suffered as a result of putting in an installation prior to that time may have some reduction in their rate burden?
  Mr. Silkin: That is an interesting point. However, I should not like to comment on it at the moment. I shall look at it to see what may be done. But the position remains this, I think. There is a degree of unfairness in that connection, and I accept it fully. It is an anomaly, but it is one in a whole balance. We must take the balance as a whole, and that is why I have made this point, conceding that it is difficult but at the same time having weighed it carefully.
  Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman accepts that the postponement of this revaluation will cause injustice and give rise to anomalies as between different ratepayers, sometimes in the same local authority area and at other times in different areas. Therefore, will he go a little further in explaining the reason for the postponement? It is very difficult to understand. If it is not, as he says, that these valuers are required to operate the enormously burdensome proposals of the Government for the nationalisation of building land, why are not the Government able to reduce their valuation staff?
  Mr. Silkin: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the land proposals. When they come, he will see why he is on a false point. It is a false point. I want to stick to this General Rate Bill and to try to explain why I believe it to be necessary to postpone this revaluation
  The revaluation was postponed solely because, as I have already said, if it had not been, work should be starting on it now. Had we allowed it to proceed, it would have shown that we were not really in earnest in our setting up of the Layfield inquiry. On the contrary, it is our intention that the Layfield inquiry shall have the fullest possible scope, and that its recommendations shall be treated with the greatest consideration.
  I started by saying that modern rating derives from the Statute of the first Elizabeth. It has had a good run and it is now time that the basis of our local government finance as a whole was examined in the light of the age in which we live. It is in that spirit that I commend this Bill to the House.
  4.27 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Rossi: It seems to have become habit forming for Labour Governments to seek a postponement of rating revaluation as soon as they have come to office—
  Mr. John Silkin: We are not alone in that.
  Mr. RossiOne was announced by the Labour Government during their 1964–66 administration, and within weeks of the election of the 1966–70 administration the Local Government Act of 1966 was introduced to postpone rating revaluation from 1968 to 1973. Today, although there was not a word about it in the Labour Party's election manifesto and not a word about it in the Gracious Speech which we debated the whole of last week, we have a Bill on the second legislative day of this Parliament to postpone rating revaluation from 1978 to 1981.
  Mr. Silkin: May I ask the hon. Gentleman this? Let us suppose that his party had won the election. They would not have dissolved the Layfield Committee, because they nominated people to serve on it. Would they not have had to postpone revaluation?
  Mr. Rossi: We would have coupled it with other measures which would have meant the complete dismantling of the rating system for the domestic ratepayer. But revaluation would have had to continue, notwithstanding Layfield, because of industrial and commercial properties. There would have been no need to postpone it.
  Each Labour Government postponement has had the effect of delaying revaluation until after the last possible date for the next succeeding General Election. That is the distinction between Labour's postponements and others which were brought about, for example, because of professional disagreements about the basis of valuation, which was one of the examples which the right hon. Gentleman gave just now as having occurred under a Conservative administration.
  The House is entitled to ask whether this habit of postponing revaluations until after the last possible date for the next General Election is mere coincidence, "happenstance", or something far more premeditated. I ask this because no doubt each time rateable values are adjusted, for the majority of people they are adjusted upwards. Anxiety is caused because of the fear that this means an increase in the rate burden. What is often forgotten on those occasions is that the weight of the rate burden is determined by the total expenditure and financial commitment undertaken by local authorities and the extent to which the Government of the day are prepared to lighten that burden by Exchequer subsidy. The real effect of revaluation is to adjust the rate burden as equitably and as justly as possible between one ratepayer and the next as the properties they occupy become more or less valuable through changing circumstances.
  In this connection—and this goes to the heart of the Bill—it is worth recalling the observations of the Allen Report on the impact of rates on households, Command 2582, of February 1965, at page 26. It said:
  "Property values change: some types of dwellings in some districts become more sought-after than others. Rents change as fashions change and as incomes rise. If rates are to be based, as they are intended to be, on current rental values, rateable values need to be revised at regular and frequent intervals. Ideally all property should be revalued every year but for administrative reasons this is impracticable."

  1267
  Now we have a proposal that will postpone revaluation for eight years. The last Labour effort in this area was to postpone it for 10 years.
  In this regard it is instructive to refer to the debates which took place in this House when revaluation was last postponed in 1966. I quote from the late Richard Crossman, then Minister of Housing and Local Government, who said:
  "it"
  —that is the rateable value—
  "remains at a fixed sum until a valuer comes along and reassesses one's property. If the quinquennial revaluation does not take place, then what justice there ever was between ratepayer and ratepayer will become progressively distorted as one property increases in value but pays no extra rates and another decreases in value but gets no automatic remission.
  Even if the valuation were always fair and intelligible, which it very often is not, rates are a tax which start getting out of date the very moment the valuation is over."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 1265.]
  So we have the present Government distorting justice as between ratepayer and ratepayer for very little good reason that is discernible. In 1966 Richard Crossman gave as his reason for postponing the 1968 revaluation the "shortage of valuers", a matter to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded. Richard Crossman went on to say, with characteristic honesty, that such shortage was intensified by the creation of the Land Commission.
  Today we have no Land Commission. Instead we have equally objectionable proposals for the nationalisation of land, coupled with all that Land Commission Act jargon of "development value", "development tax" or "betterment levy", which will be hinged upon those concepts beloved of Socialists, "base values" and "current use values". I know that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to rise and possibly answer the question I am about to put to him—surely this must mean an expensive, unwieldy bureaucracy, created for the confiscation of private property? A very heavy workload must be thrown upon the valuers and the Inland Revenue. No wonder they have had to be released from rating revaluation. Or have I got the concept incorrect?
  Mr. John Silkin: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has got the concept incorrect. I thought I had assured the House—as I have often said, one does not always
  1268
  listen to oneself and it is natural that other people should not either—that it was the Layfield inquiry and only that inquiry which caused this decision. I thought it was conceivable that the hon. Gentleman might make this rather false point and I took the precaution of finding out. Suppose there had been no White Paper on land, suppose there were no land proposals whatever, it would still have been necessary, because of the Layfield inquiry, to come to the House and ask for postponement. I hope the hon. Gentleman is satisfied.
  Mr. Rossi: I will deal with the point about the necessity of the Layfield inquiry in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman has neatly sidestepped the question about whether the proposals for land nationalisation and finding out "base values" and "current use values" and all the other wretched things so beloved of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will throw an additional burden on the Inland Revenue. In parenthesis, I would point out that it is interesting to note that when rating revaluation was taken away from the local authorities and given to the Inland Revenue in 1948 by a Labour Government it was done, to quote what was being said at the time, "in the interests of greater efficiency".
  No wonder local authorities are a little rueful at these persistent Labour Government postponements, again on the grounds of a shortage of staff in the Inland Revenue Department. [Interruption.] I thought the right hon. Gentleman made a reference to shortage of staff a moment or two ago. My hon. Friends confirm that that is what he said. The record can be seen tomorrow.
  All of this will be done at the expense of
  "justice…between ratepayer and ratepayer."
  At least Richard Crossman came clean with the House.
  What we are being told today is that revaluation has to be postponed because it coincides with the work of the Layfield Committee of Inquiry into Local Government Finance. I believe that the Press statement issued on 9th September by the Secretary of State for the Environment announcing the postponement spoke about avoiding
  " any risk of prejudicing the outcome of the wide-ranging review."

  1269
  What could be interpreted as more of a prejudgment or pre-emption of the Lay-field Report than the postponement of revaluation? [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says "No," but this is certainly the interpretation placed upon the postponement by the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I must agree with them.
  The right hon. Gentleman seems surprised. May I refer him to the correspondence files in his Department. On 10th September, the day after the Secretary of State issued his Press statement, these august bodies to whom I have referred wrote to the Permanent Secretary in the Department of the Environment saying:
  "We wish to express the most profound dismay and anxiety over the total lack of prior consultation about the decision to postpone the quinquennial rating valuation, a matter clearly of great importance to local government. We would also express similar dismay and anxiety about the decision itself. In spite of what is said in the Department of the Environment letter of 9th September announcing the decision, it is clear that the abandonment of preparations for the next revaluation could turn out to be a serious prejudging or pre-empting of the Layfield Committee's Report, due by the end of 1975.
  So long as local government is required to raise its basic revenue by means of the rating system that system should be kept up to date and failure to do so will introduce inequity and distortion as between ratepayers and as between authorities whose resources are measured by rateable values."
  Mr. John Silkin: I hate to keep on interrupting the hon. Gentleman, because it makes it appear to be a private war, which it is not, but can he explain how it could prejudice the Layfield inquiry?
  Mr. Rossi: Plainly the interpretation put on this matter by the three associations which I have mentioned has led them to assume that the Minister has already made up his mind on the action that he will take on the Layfield inquiry.
  Mr. Silkin indicated dissent.
  Mr. Rossi: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head, because those associations are not fools. They are extremely responsible bodies. They have all come to the conclusion that that is the only interpretation that they can put on the Government's decision to postpone revaluation. The right hon. Gentleman
  1270
  indicates that that is not the case, but surely, as the Minister in charge of a Department concerned with local government, he must take cognisance of and have due regard to the thoughts which he has obviously put into the minds of those associations. I put it no higher than that.
  If I felt assured that the reason behind the postponement was that the Minister had decided upon the abolition of the rating system as far as it applies to domestic ratepayers, I should be less critical of him. It is clear that the rating system, with all its inequities and because of its regressive nature, accentuated at a time of high inflation, is at risk of losing consensus acceptance by the population and, as a result, could readily break down.
  The troubles and protests of the current rating year will be nothing compared with those of next year when it is authoritatively forecast that rates will increase by another 50, 60 or even 100 per cent. in different parts of the country. That will assuredly happen if my information is correct that the Secretary of State for the Environment has given a brusque rejoinder to the pleas of local authorities for commensurate assistance of about £1,500 million. However, I cannot be too sanguine about the right hon. Gentleman's intentions either to give the necessary aid or drastically to reform the rating system—and here I give my own opinion and not that of the associations which I have quoted.
  I cannot be too sanguine about his intention to reform the rating system so as to give relief to the ordinary ratepayer because at the Labour Party conference in Newcastle in February 1973 the Secretary of State for the Environment said:
  "At a time of high taxation—and taxation should be higher under a Labour Government if we are to carry out our social programmes—we shall never find another source of as much money as accrues through the rating system".
  At least the ratepayers cannot complain that they were not warned; and many millions of them will live to rue their decision of 10th October.
  One cannot but contrast the insensitive and autocratic attitude of the Secretary of State for the Environment towards the hardship of ratepayers with the words of his predecessor, Richard Crossman. As

  1271
  long ago as 5th May 1965, Richard Crossman said:
  "…what we face now is a situation in respect of rates which is so serious that we must introduce reform and a radical change in the shortest possible time."
  A little later he said:
  "No one can afford to tolerate rates going up at a compound interest of 8 per cent.…The system must be changed".
  Then he gave a solemn pledge:
  "We shall reform the rates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1965; Vol. 711, c. 1492–3.]
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I have never heard so much hypocrisy from the official Opposition on the question of rating since I became a Member. The last Conservative administration produced a Green Paper and then a White Paper. They dealt with the reform of local government before dealing with these matters. Why did not the Conservative Party do what the hon. Gentleman is now suggesting when it was in office?
  Mr. Rossi: I accept that we produced a Green Paper, which showed that the question of rate reform was not easy, but we were not faced in those days with the inflationary situation which exists today, with the impact on ordinary ratepayers that has operated in the last year and currently. That is what has concentrated the mind wonderfully, and that is why we were determined, if returned to office, completely to recast the rating system in this Parliament. We started with a pledge of an immediate transfer of a rate burden of £500 million to the benefit of all ratepayers by the removal of the incidence of teachers' salaries and the cost of fire services and police services from the ratepayer to the taxpayer. That would immediately have dealt with a quarter of the total rate demand on current figures. That was our immediate intention.
  We believed that the abolition of the domestic rating system should be done over the life of this Parliament. That was a firm pledge which we gave the country, and it is something which the present Government clearly do not intend to do if the quotation which I have given from the February 1973 speech of the Secretary of State for the Environment is to be relied upon, because he said that Socialism means higher rates and higher taxes, and the Government will not let go of the rating system because it pro-
  1272
  duces so much money. That is the difference between the two parties on this matter.
  Richard Crossman spoke in 1965 about drastically reforming the rating system because rates were rising at 8 per cent. per annum compound. He gave a firm pledge, which has now gone completely overboard, to reform the rating system. Today, in some areas there is a prospective indication of ten times Richard Crossman's figure.
  We are told by the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot prejudice the committee's report, on which he will not be able to act for at least two years. Instead of tackling energetically and with determination the real rating problem, instead of introducing measures to alleviate the hardship that is being suffered by domestic ratepayers and small businessmen throughout the country, we have to waste time upon this piece of tomfoolery before us today which, at best, is designed to facilitate the nationalisation of land and, at worst, to gerrymander the next General Election.
  Mr. John Silkin: I follow the hon. Gentleman's strictures, but does he intend to divide the House?
  Mr. Rossi: The right hon. Gentleman well knows the arrangements that were made several days ago through the usual channels and the reasons why the House will not divide, but we reserve the right to deal with this matter in Committee, and it will be dealt with most rigorously.
  I leave the right hon. Gentleman with this thought. He and his hon. Friends act on the principle that a week is a long time in politics, but they may well discover that the British public have a very long memory, and I rely upon that memory rather than on a vote in the House today.
  4.51 p.m.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I was fortunate enough to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye last Tuesday, so that I have made my maiden speech, but I still crave the indulgence of the House in case on occasions my inexperience shows through.
  I listened with interest and some sympathy to the views of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), but I utterly dissociate myself from his general politics.

  1273
  I have been active in local government for several years. Judging from the experience of local government and of the local government associations mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, the previous Tory administration tried the wit of county and city treasurers to the point of disbelief. We in local government did not know until the last minute how we would be able to finance local government in this financial year. Early in February this year, under the Tory administration, the arrangements for financing local government were altered at the eleventh hour. It was purely coincidental, but at about the same time as the previous General Election, at the end of March, a rate levy had to be introduced although local government did not know four or five weeks in advance what moneys were likely to be received from central Government. It is ridiculous for the hon. Gentleman to try to lay all the political blame for the difficulties which face local government on the present Labour Government.
  It is naive for the Conservative Opposition to pretend to themselves, the ratepayers and the electorate at large that if they had been returned to power on 10th October they would in this financial year or in coming financial years transfer a burden of £1,000 million from the ratepayer to the general taxpayer. My arithmetic is not all that it should be, but on my calculation that would increase the standard rate of income tax by about 5p in the pound—I am advised that it is 7p in the pound.
  Mr. Graham Page: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got that 7p from. It would be 4½p.
  Mr. Marshall: I said that my arithmetic left something to be desired. Be that as it may, it is naive for the Opposition to pretend that in our difficult economic situation they would have transferred that burden of £1,000 million from the local ratepayer to the income tax payer.
  Mr. Timothy Sainsbury: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that he prefers raising money from taxpayers and ratepayers by means which are not related to their ability to pay to raising money through progressive systems of taxation?
  Mr. Marshall: I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that the Conservative Party during the recent election was
  1274
  trying to bribe the electorate. I hope to deal with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman later in my speech.
  My experience in local government has given me a deep belief in its ability to work for the common good. Local government is responsible for about 30 per cent. of total expenditure. Taking that level of expenditure into account and the services it provides, which play an important part in the general well being of the country, one would expect local government to be held in high public esteem. That is not so. The level of esteem is at an all-time low. That is deplorable, but many of the reasons for it are outside the control of local government.
  The underlying reason is the level of inflation which we have experienced in the past 18 months to two years. The rating system is singularly ill-equiped to deal with such a level of inflation. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment set up the Layfield Committee. We all know that its terms of reference are—to look at the financing of local government as a whole. It may or may not—and this is the justification for the claim which hon. Gentlemen opposite make—recommend changes in the rating system and the present valuation system. In my opinion, that is the sole reason for this General Rate Bill.
  I contend, and will continue to contend, that that itself prejudges the committee of inquiry's conclusions, because the committee may well come to the conclusion that the rating system, or one similar to that now in operation, should continue and may recommend that the present valuation system should also continue. That is one of the many possibilities. The committee may also add a rider—which my right hon. Friends who are members of the Cabinet may not like—that that system should continue.
  The only way to make the system credible again is for the Government to control the overall level of inflation. I have great faith in the Government's ability to do that. The policies outlined in the Gracious Speech last week will ensure that the present level of inflation is reduced to more manageable proportions in the coming few years. When that happens, and the level of inflation is reduced, the existing rating and valuation systems will be accepted as they

  1275
  were accepted by the general body of ratepayers until 18 months to two years ago. That is a real possibility.
  If the committee of inquiry puts forward those proposals, we are storing up for the coming years further difficulties with which the local authorities are likely to be faced. Mention has been made of the difficulties which individual ratepayers and classes of ratepayers faced as a result of the 1956, 1963, and the 1973 revaluations. All of those revaluations, because of the delay between the implementation of one and the implementation of another, differentiated not only between individual ratepayers but between one class of ratepayer and another.
  I well remember, being at the time the chairman of a finance committee in a large Midland city, the ill feeling which was aroused by the implementation of the 1973 revaluation. I remember my speech very well. I rose with a certain sense of smug complacency and self-satisfaction to announce a rate poundage which to the average ratepayer meant no overall rate increase. But that did not hide from me, or from the unfortunate ratepayers who had to pay, that the average level meant for some individual ratepayers increases of the order of 70 per cent. and more.
  That is the kind of situation which arises not only from the non-implementation of valuation, but from delaying the actual preliminary work which must be done before the valuation list is obtained. That is the background to the situation against which the Bill must be considered.
  I disagree with the Bill. I accept what my right hon. Friend said about revaluations. They do not increase the buoyancy of rates. My numeracy is not good, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, but at least I know that 50 is still 50 whether it is obtained by multiplying 20 by two and a half or 25 by two. That is the kind of argument that people have to resort to when trying to indicate that revaluations increase the buoyancy of local rates. They do not.
  I have indicated, by drawing attention to the three previous post-war revaluations, that what those revaluations did was to shift the incidence of payment
  1276
  between individual ratepayers and between different classes of ratepayer. If for one reason or another there is delay, and I accept that my right hon. Friend's reasons are the true reasons, the differences are exacerbated between one ratepayer and another and one class of ratepayer and another.
  If, for example on the quinquennial system, the 1963 revaluation had been followed in 1968 by another revaluation, the increases in rates that people faced in 1973 would not have been reduced in 1973 but would have been attained in two incremental stages rather than in one large jump from 1963 to 1973. If that had been done I am sure—I hope to convince my right hon. Friend of this—that that would have reduced a great deal of the ill feeling that it aroused in ratepayers at that time.
  I accept that the Government's decision is prompted solely by the setting up of the Layfield inquiry. I believe that the situation we face today requires flexibility rather than inflexibility. One of my main criticims of the Bill is its inflexibility. Clause 1(1) prescribes a time period of three years for postponement, while, later, there is statutory provision for further postponement of one year, followed by another year.
  I suggest to my right hon. Friend that, in the interests of flexibility in an uncertain situation, we should consider a reduction in the post-ponement period, let us say, from three to two years—or, better still, to one year. The best of all possible worlds would be to forget about postponement for a fixed period and to use the powers in Clause 1(2) dealing with postponement by statutory instrument rather than setting a fixed limit. If that method were followed—I hope to impress upon my right hon. Friend the virtue of my suggestion—that would provide sufficient flexibility for the Government to act according to the situation as it emerges following the Layfield Committee's report.
  I return to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). I realise the difficulties that local ratepayers are likely to face over the next 12 months. I know, too, that my right hon. Friends are aware of the difficulties with which they are likely to be faced.

  1277
  I have sufficient faith in my right hon. Friends to know that they will protect the interests of the ordinary domestic ratepayer. I hope that in the coming months, when the overall level of local government expenditure is made known, we shall also be informed of the additional help to be given to the domestic ratepayer in the coming financial year.
  I realise that the rating system is regressive. It was made less regressive when my hon. Friends introduced the rate relief system earlier this year. I do not pretend that the rating system is ideal, but it ensures to some degree the independence of local government from the interference of central government. I have informed the House of my activities in local government. I cherish the remaining freedom and independence that local government now has. I should not wish to be associated too strongly with any policy or any Bill which, in my opinion, reduced or tried to reduce that independence.
  That is why I cannot say in all honesty that I welcome the Bill, because I feel that in the coming years it will tend to reduce even more the independence of local government from central Government and, perhaps more importantly in the eyes of the local ratepayers—if ratepayers they continue to be—will further discredit local government in general and local authorities in particular.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Jones: I very much welcome the opportunity of following in the debate the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and of saying that he echoes the views that I know are prevalent on both sides of the House, particularly with regard to the postponement of the 1968 revaluation, and all that that implied, for the whole decade until 1973, which significantly affected rateable values.
  I also agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely about the rigidity of the proposals in the Bill. I know that I speak for many Members on both sides when I say that many of us cherish the independence which the rating system has given to local government in the past. We view proposals such as those contained in the Bill as being contrary to many of the traditions of local government and the hopes that there are for its future.
  1278
  The Bill carries a grand title—General Rate Bill. It sounds a significant measure in a variety of respects. I always think that the title of a Bill should be explicit and that it should contain in its title some descriptive material. I wonder whether the Government Front Bench will consider perhaps "Rate Abandonment Bill" or "Rate Postponement Bill"—something which would give us an idea of the purpose behind the Bill.
  When I told an hon. Lady that this afternoon we were discussing the General Rate Bill, she said, "That is a grand, fine title. What is it all about?" It was not a very rewarding exercise to tell her.
  The Bill devalues the rating system. That is inevitable in the proposals. I was interested in the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) made in his criticism of the fact that the rating system this year has been under tremendous pressures, as we all recognise, nobody better than the Under-Secretary of State. But what will happen in subsequent years when the problems we shall face will be even more acute? I think that the rating system is being undermined by the proposals in the Bill.
  We all know the work load on the Inland Revenue and the tremendous job that revaluation involves. It was taken as a central Government responsibility from local government in 1948, and I thought it would be an interesting exercise to see why and what reasons were given in those days for the shift in responsibility. The only worthwhile quotation to be found comes from the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill 1948, when the late Aneurin Bevan said:
  "Moreover, it is not properly a local government task. It is a professional job."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November 1947; Vol. 444, c. 996.]
  Whether the concept of professionalism of local government has changed is bound to be questioned by that remark. Who is better able to know local values than local valuers? We have seen a transfer. We saw rating valuation nationalised in 1948 and it is right to say that subsequent Socialist administrations have abused the system.
  There has been no revaluation for rating purposes during any period under a Socialist administration. There have been three post-war revaluations—in

  1279
  1956, 1963 and 1973. I recall the circumstances so well when the postponement in 1968 was announced by the late Richard Crossman. Subsequently he confessed in my hearing that it was a political decision—and a wise one at that. I wonder to what extent this decision is a reflection of that political content of the circumstances briefly referred to by my hon. Friend.
  The whole rate support grant is dependent upon the calculations of rateable values and it is most unfortunate that we should not be able to retain what little buoyancy there is in the rating system, faced, as we are, with the rigidity for a further three-year period beyond 1978.
  The Minister always presents a poor case better than most and is always acceptable in terms of communication, indeed, if not in content. He was more modest when he said that in the House one often does not listen to what one says. I thought that that was personal derogation which was quite unjustified, and certainly does less than justice to himself. It reminded me of the charwoman who, when asked what she thought about a certain problem, said, "How do I know what I think till I heard what I've said?" The right hon. Gentleman was almost on the verge of that relationship in what he said.
  It is unfortunate for the rating system that the Government should think it necessary to have a postponement. I remember, during the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill, 1966, that there was considerable discussion on the question whether we ought to have a continuing revaluation—say, over a period of years, a rolling programme of revaluation. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) spoke at length on that during the Committee proceedings and a substantial case was made for a rolling revaluation for rating purposes.
  I notice that this point has been taken up by the Association of Council Councils, which says:
  "With computers available to make quick revisions of valuation lists and accept continuous feed-in of data which will ensure an up-to-date approach to revaluation, there should be continuous revision of the valuation lists in lieu of quinquennial revaluation."
  1280
  I still think that that requires consideration. It does not arise from our discussions today but it is important enough for our attention to be directed to it. It is academic now.
  I do not see the justification for the postponement of revaluation on the grounds suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. A letter sent to the Department over the signatures of the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils, and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, has been quoted. There is substantial evidence that the local authority associations are very critical of what is being proposed in the Bill. There is substance in their criticism, and it is not right to say, as the Government have said, that it would be wrong to pre-judge what the Layfield recommendations are likely to be. It is the other way round. The fact that the Government propose to postpone and delay the revaluation is an indication to the Layfield Committee of Government thinking. The two interpretations are there, and it is a question of which one is taken.
  The proposals in the Bill are unnecessary and unfortunate because of the short-term devaluing effects they will have on the rating system.
  5.22 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I shall not keep the House very long, because most of the relevant points have already been made.
  On first hearing of the Government's intention to postpone the quinquennial valuations from 1978 to 1981 I and most of my colleagues thought it a sensible measure in view of the decision to set up the Layfield Committee to look into the future of the rating system. Moreover—and the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) is in a similar profession to my own—as a chartered surveyor, I am aware that there is a shortage of qualified staff. I met a senior valuation officer the other day who was recalled to my own constituency. He was delighted to come back, for he was paid a handsome salary. I also suspect, as the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) suspected, that one is thinking in terms of further likely burdens that will be put upon my profession, arising from the Government's land proposals and the possibility of a wealth tax.

  1281
  Incidentally, having read in today's Daily Telegraph that I lost my seat in the last election, I am delighted to know that I may get my job back in the Inland Revenue. But I should be worried if I were to go back to that job now because it would be a difficult task to perform. I have the greatest sympathy with valuation officers in their attempts to assess rateable values or capital values of any sort when there is an absence of transactions in the property market.
  This is a further instrusion by central Government into local government affairs. As the hon. Member for Hornsey recalled, the reason the Inland Revenue was given the task of preparing and revising the valuation list way back in 1948 was to ensure, as he said, greater efficiency and also uniformity and regular up-dating. Now we are once more taking the easy way out and making another postponement.
  The White Paper on The Future Shape of Local Government Finance, published by the Conservative Government in 1971, said in paragraph 4,
  "As the White Paper on Local Government, in England said, 'A vigorous local democracy means that authorities must be given real functions—with powers of decision and the ability to take action without being subjected to excessive regulation by central government through financial or other controls'. Any review of financial arrangements must seek to preserve and strengthen the financial responsibility of local government and to minimise detailed intervention by central Departments."
  Those words must sound pretty hollow today to the metropolitan county and district councils who have written and made representations.
  In the representations made by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities they make the very relevant point, which was not referred to earlier, about the need to keep records. I should like to quote from that, because I should like to have some assurances on this from the Minister when he winds up the debate. They say:
  "there remains the issue of keeping alive valuation records held by the Inland Revenue so as to secure that if some form of rating is advocated by the Committee of Inquiry.…"
  —that is, the Layfield Committee—
  "and accepted by the Government, or indeed is accepted by the Government in the absence of any unanimity as to the Layfield Report",
  1282
  —I imagine there is a strong risk of that being the case—
  "there will then be a very serious problem of producing an up-to-date base for rating valuations."
  Later, they say, as we all know:
  "At the present time the Inland Revenue receives full information on a confidential basis of all property transactions including the capital value of the transaction …".
  It is important that we have an assurance that this process will continue, as the Layfield Committee may well come out with some sort of recommendation based on capital values, so that the keeping of those records is vitally important.
  May I also suggest—I am not trying to make a plug for my professional colleagues—that if there proves to be a severe shortage of professional expertise, some of this work could be farmed out to private practice, much of which is in the doldrums, where there are very good experts.
  Of course, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the Layfield Committee will support the continuation of industrial and commercial rating, as the hon. Member for Hornsey indicated. I thought the hon. Member got a bit off the point in talking later about shop premises, as those are presumably commercial premises. The small shopkeepers, incidentally, have had a very rough deal and I hope that pressure will be put on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to extend to small shopkeepers some of the relief accorded to domestic ratepayers in relation to increases in the current financial year. Perhaps it could be to those having gross values of £1,000 or less, to guess at a figure. That would be a very great help to them.
  I suspect that the Layfield Committee will come down in favour of the abolition of domestic rating, which I agree is in a complete mess. The Minister pointed out one of its contradictions when he referred to the point about central heating. It is also extremely difficult for valuers to assess rateable values when one has rent freezes and the proliferation of various Rent Acts. I always feel very sorry for domestic ratepayers appealing against their assessments in the valuation courts when perhaps the chairman of the court asks, "How much do you think you might let your house for if you let it tomorrow?" It is always a figure far

  1283
  in excess of the figure he is arguing against. There are a great many anomalies. It would therefore be prudent to continue to process such evidence as there is at present on industrial and commercial transactions to enable accurate assessments to be made when needed.
  One of the worst effects of a postponement of this kind is the shock experience by ratepayers when the new assessments are published after a long period. There is also the tendency of local authorities to relax their vigil somewhat—having some false margins to play with, as they seem to feel.
  Finally, I should like an assurance from the Minister about the serious outstanding problems arising from the out-of-date assessments of the nationalised industries. These are referred to again in the letter from the various associations to the Permanent Secretary at the Department. There was one section not read out earlier. Perhaps I may read it. The third paragraph reads:
  "There are very serious outstanding problems as to bringing up to date the rating assessments of the nationalised industries which have been promised for 1975".
  It asks what is the position on these.
  I have made one or two inquiries, but I am not very well up on this matter. I cannot find out exactly what is the position, because various nationalised industries, as far as I am aware, are assessed on different bases. Perhaps we could have an answer to that during the windup speech.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. David Weitzman: I had not intended to intervene in any way in this debate. I bow to the much superior knowledge of hon. Members who have taken part in giving expert opinion on the rating system. However, I listened carefully to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government, followed by a torrent of words and simulated indignation on the part of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). I am sorry he is not present, because, listening to him, I could not understand what the row was all about and what he was so indignant about in criticising the speech of my right hon. Friend.
  1284
  The hon. Gentleman characterised the Labour Government—perhaps not directly but by implication—as, being a very wicked Government in daring to bring forward a measure of this kind. The implication behind it was that the Labour Government were doing this because it was connected in some way with a scheme for taking over development land. My right hon. Friend gave him the answer to that. Whether the hon. Gentleman accepted it, I do not know, but it seems to me that there is good reason for my right hon. Friend bringing forward this Bill in this way. Indeed, he stated specifically the reason for doing so.
  I do not know what the fuss is all about. Questions have been raised whether the Layfield Committee, in the recommendations it eventually makes, will or will not come down in favour of the abolition of the rating system. We do not know. Perhaps it is a good guess that it may well do something about the rating system. But if it should come down in favour of abolishing the rating system, as at present, all the work done on revaluation would be wasted. Indeed, whatever recommendation the Layfield Committee makes, it surely would be stupid to allow the expense and the work to go forward in revaluation when one might have a recommendation which would make that work completely worthless.
  The hon. Member for Hornsey, as I said, spoke by implication of the wicked Labour Government and the way we had postponed measures for revaluation over the years. I wonder why he neglected to mention what Conservative Governments have done in the past and how they have held over revaluations for various reasons.
  Accepting what my right hon. Friend said, we have here a simple case. The Layfield Committee is having to consider the matter of rating, including revaluation, local government and the measures relating to it. My right hon. Friend, therefore, comes before the House and says, "Let us not waste time and expense on revaluation at a period when all that work may become quite unnecessary as a result of the recommendations of the Lay-field Committee."
  I do not know why hon. Members opposite are so suspicious about this. It seems to me that my right hon. Friend

  1285
  has presented a perfectly good, sound simple case. Where the argument arises, I do not know. This is a simple, straightforward Bill which ought to receive the approval of the House.
  5.35 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: Let me answer the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) at once. The reason for the opposition to this Bill is the suspension of the revaluation for as much as five years. If the Layfield Committee reports at an early stage and says that the rating system is to be maintained, there is no earthly reason to postpone the revaluation for five years. Revaluation can be accomplished in a matter of three years, from the start.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): I hate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman so early in his speech. The Bill proposes that the revaluation be in 1981, rather than 1978. Initially it would be for three years. I know that there is provision for extra years, but it is envisaged for three, not five, years.
  Mr. Page: My arithmetic was wrong. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is for an extension of three years. I say that three years is not necessary.
  Mr. Weitzman: What would the right hon. Gentleman's Government have done if they had been returned? My guess is that they would have done exactly the same thing.
  Mr. Page: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will be patient for a moment, I will make my own speech, if I may. I answered his question at the beginning.
  We are all painfully aware of the results of the previous revaluation. The increase in rental values and, therefore, rateable values of property after 10 years was so great that the public were shocked by the rise in their rateable values. If we still have a rating system in 1981—and I say that deliberately—I am sure there will be the same sort of shock to the public after a delay of so long between revaluations.
  If the Bill were coupled with a Government assurance that household rates would be abolished, I should offer no opposition at all to the Bill, because we are merely saying to the valuers, "Do not
  1286
  start off with it; we are going to abolish this system". I should not object to that. The trouble is that the Bill is coupled with too many statements from the Government banches in praise of the rating system. Therefore, we must deal with the Bill on the basis that the present Government, at any rate, are thinking along the lines of retaining the rating system.
  The Minister cannot blame us for being suspicious about the employment of valuers. Last time the revaluation was postponed because of a land grab and a tax. It was on the occasion of the Land Commission and the betterment levy. This time it comes just before the right hon. Gentleman introduces his Bill on land municipalisation.
  Mr. John Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman and I know one another well enough to be perfectly frank. When the late Richard Crossman introduced the previous postponement, he gave the reason. He said that we would need valuers for this work. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will take it from me—this is now the fourth time that I have said it—that it is Layfield inquiry, and that alone, that causes the postponement.
  Mr. Page: If the right hon. Gentleman will pause to reflect for a moment, I was complaining that he has not been entirely frank with the House. During the Conservative Government, in which I had the honour to serve, we shifted valuers from the Inland Revenue to local authorities, and gave greater authority to the local authorities to employ their own valuers. There is a shift—if it has continued during the past nine months or so—from the Inland Revenue to local authorities.
  The right hon. Gentleman's plan for land nationalisation is land municipalisation. I imagine that it will be the local authority valuers who will value the current use value, and so on. That is the reason—and I wish he had explained that to the House a little earlier—that he is saying, "This is not because of the employment of valuers; in fact we shall employ local authority valuers to do the valuations. The delay is only on the basis of Layfield."
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is a general shortage of valuers, and I

  1287
  should imagine that some of these municipal valuers will come out of the Inland Revenue.
  Mr. Page: That was what I was saying. We have been shifting them from the Inland Revenue into local authorities. I am a little doubtful about what the Land Tribunal will do about this. I think that there will be more appeals if the local authority valuer is valuing on current use value than if the Inland Revenue are doing so. However, this is a subject we can come back to on the Land Bill when the right hon. Gentleman presents it.
  It is, therefore, only Layfield. Hon. Members have already said how unfair a delay in revaluation can be as between one tenant and another, and we have proved on the recent occasion how unfair it can be between one local authority and another. As the House knows, the resources element in the rate support grant is distributed on the basis of the total rateable value of the rating authority. We set a standard rateable value below which the local authority receives its share of the resources element.
  If the Bill is passed through the House and there is this further delay of three years in revaluation, there will be an imbalance between local authorities, as there was after 10 years. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to revise the rate support grant formula so far as the resources element is concerned, or to balance it with some juggling—if I may put it that way—with the domestic element, because this will need to be looked at very carefully? Once we get into 1978 to 1981, there will again be a grave imbalance between the towns.
  Let us assume for a moment that a rating system will still be in operation in 1981. Upon what basis will property be valued? If the Government have their way and carry out the declarations that will be made on their behalf during the progress of the Housing Rents and Subsidies Bill, there will be no private property left. There will be only council property. That was the purport, as I understood it, of the Minister's statements. If there are to be only owner-occupiers and council tenants in future, how on earth do we find a rental market on which these valuers can work? The idea of
  1288
  valuation on a rental basis is getting more and more remote, and this applies particularly to residential property.
  What about commercial property? If the right hon. Gentleman has his way with land municipalisation there will be no commercial property available for development. It will all be developed about 10 years hence, if at all. At any rate, there will be no market for the development of industrial and commercial property and, therefore, no market value. It is setting the valuers an impossible task for valuation, and that is why this Bill may be completely frustrating.
  I come back to what I said at the beginning. I should have no objection if the Bill really were related to Layfield. I should relate it in this way: give Lay-field another year to report and then, if he still reports that there should be a rating system, allow three years on top of that for the process to be carried out. I do not think it needs longer than that. That means only one year's extension.
  I hope that my Front Bench will fight the Bill on the basis that it should be just a year's extension of the revaluation and no more. That would be taking Layfield into account and carrying out exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has said he wants to do. I hope he will consider that and commend it to the House.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: I am sure that during its history this House has had some strange suggestions made to it, and the one I have just heard—that an hon. Member would be happy to support a Bill which postponed the revaluation of property provided it also included a clause to abolish the rating system—is strange indeed. I see little point in postponing the revaluation of property if there is a subsection to abolish the rating system.
  After listening to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), I am surprised at the extent to which a measure such as this—on the face of it an innocuous measure—is capable of raising blood pressure and temperature. I happen to believe that one of the reasons why the Opposition are getting so upset about this measure is that they can remember the effect in 1973 when revaluation was

  1289
  pushed through and continued, despite tremendous opposition from ratepayers. Let us make no mistake about it: the effect of the last revaluation was to shift the rate burden to domestic ratepayers and away from commercial and industrial property. That decision to carry on with the revaluation, coupled with the appalling Act to reform local government—from which no one knows how, why or what benefits are to be received—heralded the start of much of the feeling of domestic ratepayers today about the rate burden.
  Mr. Douglas Hurd (Mid-Oxon): One of the difficulties of the 1973 revaluation was precisely that it came 10 years after the previous one, and that it came after the last postponement by the previous Labour Government.
  Mr. Grocott: Yes, and it came at a time when we all knew that local government reform was about to be undertaken. I remember only too well—at the time I was chairman of the local authority finance committee—the look of shock among my officials when they ushered me into their presence to explain to me the effect of revaluation on the domestic ratepayer. They were stunned by it. I also remember a meeting in Worcestershire of finance committee chairmen—hon. Members are aware that Worcestershire is many things, but it is not a hotbed of Socialism, and I was the only Labour member there—and their indignation and pleas to the Government.
  I remind hon. Members that revaluation does not always have the effect of making matters fairer, as some people are suggesting, but often transfers the burden to the people least able to pay. It was often the smaller properties, the poorer properties, council houses, and so on, which had real problems after the last revaluation.
  I hope that my view of the rating system will not be interpreted as meaning that the rating system should be retained for all time. Hon. Members have been fond of quoting the late Richard Crossman today. I remember his saying that the rating system was a relic of the first Elizabethan era that should never have been allowed to survive to the second. I happen to think that that is a fairly good description of the Conservative Party but it was used by
  1290
  Richard Crossman to describe the rating system, and I hope that we shall see a considerable reorganisation of local government finance.
  But we must remember the effect of the last Act. There is, possibly, a certain amount of egg on the faces of the Opposition, as they will realise if they sit back and think of the origin of the present outcry among ratepayers. It dates back to their Government, to their activities and particularly to their Local Government Act.
  5.49 p.m.
  Mr. Tony Durant: I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments in this short debate. Most of the points have been made, so I shall cut my speech as much as possible.
  I begin by commenting on what the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) has said. He knocked his argument down by saying that when he had been ushered in to see his officials he had found them horror-struck by the sudden rise in rates. That was the effect of delaying the implementation of the earlier proposal. By citing that incident the hon. Gentleman knocked his own proposal on its head.
  I share the slight suspicion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) of this whole matter. We have had several reassurances from the Dispatch Box that there is no need to fear that the Bill is connected with any other measure. We are assured that it is related only to the Layfield Committee's report. One must accept that, but there is a lingering suspicion that that may not be the case.
  Following what my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said about the rate support grant. I should like to make a plea that when the matter is discussed the Secretary of State should consider the district councils and not pass on any relief only to the county councils, because this particularly affects my constituency. I support very much the suggestion that a year's extension might have been a viable idea, but this will obviously not be accepted.
  The hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) asked what all the fuss was about. Has he not been listening to

  1291
  what ratepayers throughout the country have been saying? There is a tremendous uproar about rates. This is another seemingly small measure which confuses and worries people. There is, therefore, a fuss and worry about rates. The public, councils and officials are worried about local government finance. That is why we are having this debate and why there is strength of feeling about it.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) covered a great deal of what I intended to say. I am pleased to see that he has been re-elected since the statement in this morning's early newspapers. The hon. Gentleman is not here to be congratulated. I want to deal with the matter he raised concerning small shopkeepers. This is a matter of some urgency. In my constituency the number of shop closures is alarming, and we shall have vast tracts of the area without any small traders such as newsagents, cobblers or any other type of trader. This is a serious matter.
  It is a pity that the Secretary of State has said that the Layfield Committee is the reason for the postponement. What happens if the Layfield Committee, in spite of everything, says that rates must continue? All that would happen is that we would then have a scramble to achieve another valuation. Why cannot the valuation go on while the Layfield Committee is meeting so that, if it says that rates must continue, we are in a position to have that revaluation? There is no doubt that a postponement would distort the problem of rates, as many hon. Members have said, and would make the whole rating position even worse.
  I should like to pick up the point that has been made by a number of hon. Members about the Green Paper. I admit that I support those hon. Members in much of what they said. I was involved in a local reorganisation committee and received a copy of the famous Green Paper. That document was a farce because it put up ideas and merely knocked them down. It was a great pity that more was not done at that stage.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) talked about Conservative policy at the last election and said that all we would do was shift the burden on to the general taxpayer. I do not think he read it properly, because it
  1292
  stated that we would look at other ways, bearing in mind the report of the Lay-field Committee, to make the local rate system fairer and based on ability to pay. Everyone feels that the injustice is that the present system is not based on ability to pay.
  The situation is very serious and we as Members of Parliament are all under pressure. Why cannot the committee report much earlier? I cannot see that it will take all this time. There is so much documentation and so much evidence that the committee simply has to sit down, make a few decisions and put those decisions to us. To take all this time to report is a lot of nonsense. If the chaps do not have sufficient time, let us get some people who have the time, because the matter is very serious and urgent.
  I hope that the Layfield Committee will consider valuation as a basis. It has been mentioned already that the basis of valuation should also be considered by that committee if it decides to continue with general rating. I hope the committee will also look at the question of site valuation. I have mixed views on the matter. I am not necessarily a supporter of it merely because I have raised the subject, but I hope that it will be considered by the Layfield Committee.
  Rates are still going up and up. We have heard about next year's problems in this respect. My own local authority speaks of the possibility of a 40 per cent. increase. This will mean an increase of 120 per cent. over a period of three years. It is a frightening thought for local ratepayers. There is no question but that there will be trouble on this front next year.
  I shall, therefore, have to accept what the Minister said. He chided me once for not listening to the answer when I asked him a question. I have listened very carefully and absorbed what he said. I therefore take it at its face value that this is not sharp gerrymandering, because the official is to be used for some other purpose.
  There was some confusion in the dialogue across the Table as to whether we were short of people. I draw the Minister's attention to the effect of the Bill on public service manpower, which is mentioned on the front. It states that

  1293
  there is a shortage, and that the valuation office is
  "unable to recruit professional valuers to the level of its manpower requirement."
  In other words, there is anxiety about the professionals. Nevertheless I was not too clear about the friendly dialogue which took place, so I missed the outcome of it.
  I shall, therefore, support the Bill in the sense that we shall not divide on it tonight, but I have grave anxieties, and I hope that the Minister will take note of this.
  5.55 p.m.
  Mr. John Cartwright: In company with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) I have considerable reservations about the effect of the Bill, and some doubts about the practical problems which it raises. I speak on behalf of the metropolitan areas of the country. It is an indication of the importance of this issue for local government that it has succeeded in uniting the shire counties, the districts and the metropolitan areas as well. Not many issues bring those three parts of local government on to the same wavelength.
  The first issue which concerns local government in this problem is the absence of consultation before the intentions of the Government were made known. When the local authority associations took this matter up with the Department they were told that this was an executive act of Government and, therefore, not something subject to consultation. But this was, after all, a basic and independent source of finance given by Parliament to local government and, therefore, an issue on which local government ought to have been consulted before decisions were taken. It seems a cavalier way in which to treat local government.
  This is important because on both sides of local government there is a growing feeling that successive Ministers make a lot of fancy speeches about respecting the integrity of local government, safeguarding its rôle and believing in its importance, but these executive acts of Government are taken without any consultation with the local authorities concerned.
  My right hon. Friend has indicated that the whole basis, reason and purpose of
  1294
  this Bill is that to continue with the revaluation would be to prejudge Lay-field. As a newcomer to the House, I find it a fairly novel doctrine that, whenever one sets up a Royal Commission or a high-powered committee of inquiry one has to stop all the ongoing commitments under existing legislation on the ground that to do otherwise might prejudice the results of the inquiry. I should have thought that a recipe for a rather chaotic situation. I join with other hon. Members who say that a better case could be made out for the decision to postpone the revaluation, prejudging what one expects from the Layfield Committee.
  Unlike the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) I do not think that the Layfield Committee has an easy job. If I may declare my interest, for a few weeks earlier this year I was a member of that committee, before the electors of Woolwich, East called me to higher things. I think it has a difficult job to do in finding some means of financing local government so as to give local authorities a buoyant, rising, lively source of finance which, at the same time, is under local control and does not place a heavy burden on the domestic ratepayer. I do not think that it will be easy to reconcile those requirements.
  Perhaps Layfield will eventually say that the rating system has to be scrapped, and some of us might be happy about that outcome. It might say that it should be reformed, or that the rating system should be retained in part and supplemented by other forms of local government finance. Layfield might come out in favour of a capital value based rating system. If a number of these possibilities come up, there will be a need for some up-to-date guide to property values.
  I note the point which has been made by a number of hon. Members that there is a grave risk of a gap in information if the next revaluation does not come into force till 1981. There is a risk—my right hon. Friend fairly recognises this in his opening speech—of distortion and inequity, not just between one ratepayer and another but between one local authority and another. There is the growing impact of inflation. We are all aware of its impact on local authorities, labour-intensive concerns as they are. We know

  1295
  also that the rating system at the moment gives a fixed base for local government income. It is not a buoyant situation, and this has been argued in the past on behalf of local government as a case for more, not less, frequent revaluation. In circumstances such as the boom in property prices which we saw in the early 1970s, the situation can change rapidly.
  That is why I share the view of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), that if the revaluation is postponed, at least we should maintain the information to which he referred, on property transactions, details of value and so on, so that there will be some basis of fact if we need it to put into a valuation system again very swiftly.
  One point which has not yet been mentioned in the debate is the impact of the valuation system on the rate support grant. It is of fairly substantial importance to the allocation of the resources and the domestic elements in the rate support grant. The third report of the Department of the Environment Grants Working Party, referring to the London situation, states:
  "Most members consider that London's exceptional rateable resources outweigh London's exceptional spending needs."
  I do not agree with that conclusion, but it indicates the extent to which rateable value is used in these decisions. I believe that rateable value is an unfair test of the resources of any local authority. If we are to operate on out-of-date rateable value statistics, it becomes an even less fair test of the allocation of resources under the rate support grant.
  I recognise that my right hon. Friends face considerable difficulties in this matter. I think that we all recognise, with good reason, that rates are a very unpopular form of tax. I recognise that a revaluation is still more unpopular when the ratepayer suddenly sees the rateable value of his property soaring at a rapid rate. Indeed, we have not yet sorted out all the appeals from the last revaluation. I also recognise that the Layfield Committee presented a new situation to which the Government had to respond, but I honestly feel that my right hon. Friends could have dealt with the matter with rather less cavalier disregard for the views of local authority associations, with more understanding of the problems now facing local government, and with more con-
  1296
  sideration of the not very high state of morale which now exists in local government.
  6.2 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Hurd (Mid-Oxon): I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) on the point about consultation, which he emphasised, although he put forward a convincing argument.
  In moving the Second Reading of the Bill the Minister for Planning and Local Government, in solemn terms, told us of the timetable set out by the Government for the Layfield Committee's work. I think that by now we all accept that that timetable is the justification and the reason for the Bill. However, what worries us most is the thought that the timetable and the Government's action on it is an inadequate response to the present crisis. It surprised me, as a new Member last February, that this should be so. Heaven knows, in the last Parliament we tried again and again, afternoon by afternoon and evening by evening, to ram home the point that something new and serious was happening in local government, but the response from Ministers was inadequate. They will live to recognise and regret that fact.
  I am not now thinking of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's domestic rate relief. Now is not the time to discuss that. I am thinking of the Layfield Committee and its timetable. The Minister repeated today that the timetable asks this distinguished body to report at the end of next year. That means that we have at least two or perhaps three more years of the present rating system operating under the worst possible conditions. It would clearly be impossible, if the Government do not get the report till the end of next year, to bring in legislation before the summer of 1976. It would also clearly be impossible for that legislation to have any effect till the financial year 1977–78. Therefore, we would have at least two years—I suggest possibly three years—of the present system operating under impossible conditions. I hope the Government will note that, from my admittedly brief experience in this matter, I feel that the system will not survive for long.
  Oxfordshire is far from the worst affected. It must be about in the middle. The

  1297
  figures that I am about to quote will be greater for other counties. Oxfordshire County Council set aside £6 million to cover inflation this year, but it expects to overspend by £2½ million. That is after making modest allowance for the Houghton Report on teachers' pay and for the manual workers' settlement, neither of which is yet known. Its committed growth on existing programmes is 4½ per cent. On top of that is the increase in population and whatever calculation is made for inflation next year. Adding these things together—that is what we are beginning to do in a very painful way—we find the certainty of cuts in local government services and another round next year of high rate increases. Already there are angry protest meetings about the cuts. If that process is repeated next year and the year after, and possibly the year after that, before anything that the Layfield Committee may recommend can have any effect, we shall move very quickly into an intolerable situation.
  One difference between this coming year and the current year is that, whereas the Secretary of State managed to manoeuvre the figures so that the cities were to some extent protected in the current year—one had the impression from time to time that we were regarded as a lot of hayseeds and that these ructions in the far east were greatly exaggerated by the Liberal and Conservative parties—in this corning year London and the big cities will be affected in a major way. I think that that will affect the attendance at and speeches in this House from the Government side.
  The basic reasons why the system is becoming unacceptable are simple. Whatever the theoretical arguments about the rating system, at a time of high inflation it rapidly becomes unacceptable because it does not provide local authorities with greater incomes as costs and salaries rise, it is not automatically buoyant, and it is not related to the ability of people to pay. Listening to ratepayers one gets the impression that they feel that the system as it operates now offends a basic sense of natural justice. That was the phrase used by the Secretary of State yesterday, and that was the phrase that was used in opposition to our Housing Finance Act.
  Before we get into real trouble next year the Secretary of State ought to consider
  1298
  what kind of collision might conceivably occur between those who now represent ratepayers in numerous associations, local government and central Government. The situation is a good deal more serious than the debate so far has indicated. The Government ought at least to have some kind of emergency and contingency plans.
  Would it not be possible—I put this forward as a serious suggestion—to say to the Layfield Committee "We still desperately need your advice. Because inflation is going so strong, the situation is now more urgent than we originally thought. The evidence is here. We have in the Department, in that curious palace in Marshall Street, piles of it assembled for the Green Paper prepared by the Conservative Government. It needs updating. However, the evidence and the choice are there. Will you look at it and let us have your views on the radical changes which are needed by the end of this year? Then we can produce legislation by 1975? "If that could be done I think that there would be a chance of rescuing the situation. If the Government do not do that, I feel that the Layfield Committee, before it reaches the end of its leisurely deliberations, may find that it is not examining an invalid but is conducting a post mortem on a corpse.
  6.9 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Hatton: The Bill makes sense only if it is accepted that there is a need to get local government finance once and for all on a sound and sensible basis. If that is accepted, the postponement of revaluation is understandable.
  Local government is going through one of its most difficult periods ever. It has been living through severe inflation. One of its gravest difficulties at present is coping with the reorganisation put into effect by the previous Conservative Government. Ratepayers are now finding themselves having to make considerably increased payments but at the same time they are being provided with reduced services because of the high costs of administration placed on local government by that reorganisation.
  I want briefly to highlight one aspect of the situation. It is an aspect which troubles me greatly in relation to a postponement of revaluation. I speak of

  1299
  the difficulties that exist because of the formulae that are applied to the determination of rateable values of flats and houses, where we have a situation in which flats tend to be rated more highly than private houses because the notional rent is normally considered to be higher.
  This is one of the severe anomalies of the present time. It arouses anger among ratepayers about the amount paid by one ratepayer as against another. This can be highlighted particularly in inner city areas, where there has been much in-filling by new housing developments of multi-storey flats and other types of flat development. Some of this development has been undertaken by bodies such as housing associations to assist those who have been unable to find housing through the housing lists of local authorities. They have found themselves with a severe rating assessment which has compared very unfavourably with that of those who live in adjacent houses. In my constituency I have an example of a housing association development in which two-bedroomed accommodation has a rateable value of £266 although adjacent to it are detached houses with a garage—much more desirable residences—with rateable values of £247 and £236.
  I regret that the postponement that we are to suffer because of the Bill will mean that residents in accommodation of that kind will continue to feel that they are being punished because of the type of development in which they find themselves. Nevertheless I accept, as I have said, that if we are to have local government finance on a sound basis once and for all, a Bill of this kind, in view of the Layfield Committee's determination, ought to be accepted. There is an urgent need for the committee to report as speedily as possible. Indeed, I hope that the Government will do everything in their power to facilitate the committee's work.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Timothy Sainsbury: It is unusual to have a debate in which so many hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed reservations, in some cases very considerable reservations, about the Bill. I am glad to be able to follow up the remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Hatton), who has put forward some of
  1300
  the reservations, doubts and worries which we all share.
  I have looked at the Bill to see whether we could find anything to commend in it. Happily, I am able to find at least two points. The first is its brevity and comprehension. Even those of us who are not possessed of special legal qualifications find it fairly comprehensible.
  There is one other point that I find possibly good about the Bill. In this connection I should, perhaps, declare an interest of a kind since I was at one time a part-time member of what was known as the Business Team in the Civil Service Department. While I was so employed I wrote several reports, in one of which I touched upon what seemed to me to be an anomaly—which is known as the Rating of Government Property Department. It is a very small sub-department indeed.
  It seems to me to be an anomaly in several ways. First, I do not think that it represents an efficient and effective deployment of what we have all agreed is a rather scarce resource—namely, professional valuers. Second, a long-standing subject of resentment by local authorities of all types is that they do not have Government property in their areas rated on the same basis as other property and rated by the people responsible for rating all other sorts of property. Perhaps the pause that the Bill unhappily gives us could be turned to good effect if that matter at least was looked at and if this long-standing anomaly could be put right.
  Turning to the general subject, however, I believe that we must consider it against what is in effect an outcry about rates. It comes from all areas of the country and from occupants of all types of property. I recognise, as the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said, that we are not looking at the Bill as though in some mysterious way revaluation would increase the buoyancy of the rating revenue. The argument is not about the buoyancy of the rate revenue. The argument surely ought to be about the acceptability of the method of raising this revenue and the equity between individuals and, indeed, between companies from whom that revenue is raised.
  An important point that has not been touched on very much during the debate

  1301
  is that this matter affects companies and businesses just as much as it affects individuals. The plight of the small shopkeeper has been mentioned. I support what has been said by hon. Members who have mentioned that problem. But the whole of commerce and industry now has a greatly increased rate burden. It is becoming a major cost factor, for example, in retailing. The Minister has admitted that property values change. Perhaps it is true to say that in commerce and industry they change rather more rapidly and radically than they do in other areas.
  I am sure that the Minister and his advisers will be familiar with the history of the excess allowance. That allowance used to be claimed by those operating large retail stores, on the argument, then felt to be generally acceptable, that the excess area over a normal-size retail unit was not worth the same amount pro rata as the standard-size unit with an ordinary amount of high street frontage. For a long time certain larger stores paid less rates pro rata than did the smaller ones. It now seems that we may be moving into a situation in which exactly the reverse will apply.
  Therefore, if one postpones a revaluation for as long as is suggested by the Bill, the inequities are bound to increase. We must bear in mind that the values on which rates are now paid are not those of 1973 but are assessments made during the course of 1970, 1971 and 1972, which in many cases are subject to appeals, many of which are still outstanding. The balance of the rate burden between offices and shops, which had quite clearly got out of line between 1963 and 1973, is likely to get out of line again.
  But perhaps quite rightly most of us who have contributed to the debate have been concerned about individuals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) said, the problem is that rates are a tax that is levied without regard to the individual ratepayer's ability to pay that tax. Perhaps while the rate burden on any one individual was not substantial that did not matter too) much. Even though the amount was not substantial, the system could not be called particularly fair. The point has already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) that it is the very rapid increase
  1302
  in the rate burden that has concentrated all our minds on the inequity of this taxation on individuals, and particularly on single-person households.
  I have in my constituency no fewer than 12,000 single-person households and nearly every one of these can be held to be subject to an unfair burden by reason of the method of levying rates. Again, the longer the period between valuation, the more difficult it is to get the balance right between houses and flats. Changes in the environment of houses and flats will change their relative values. It is possible that people will quite correctly pay greater attention, and therefore attach greater value, to the ease of heating a property as the years go by, and this could have a significant effect on relative values. The longer the postponement, the greater the potential inequity.
  Another aspect is that the unfortunate valuers, in short supply as we all know, have to deal with a large number of large-scale alterations and new buildings. The further they get away from the base date for the valuation, the more difficult it will be for them, for ratepayers and for their professional advisers to interpret what is known as the tone of the list and to try to scale down the current values to the original value from the time the rating list was first prepared.
  There therefore exists inequity between firms and individual householders. There is potential inequity between householders as a group and commerce and industry as an organisation. It is continuing inflation, which even the most optimistic of speakers today has not expected to disappear overnight, the growth in the responsibilities of local government imposed on it by the central Government, and, therefore, the inevitable growth in the spending of local government that bring this matter to a state of increasing urgency. A tax which is unfair and which is getting higher and higher eventually becomes a tax which is unacceptable.
  I support my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), who said that we need a much more urgent approach to this unacceptable situation, otherwise the ratepayers will no longer pay up, not only because the burden upon them is excessive but because it is raised in an unfair

  1303
  way. The Bill does nothing to ease that problem.
  The Government's whole approach seems too little and too lazy. We need something altogether more urgent. We need immediate attention to the burdens on ratepayers, domestic ratepayers particularly, for the coming financial year. Surely we could have a speedier report from the Layfield Committee, particularly in view of all the work that has already been done. Why must we wait until the end of 1975 at the earliest? May we have more than just the Bill? It does not do much to help but it does not make the situation much worse. May we have immediate action? If we do not, there will be serious problems in the next rates season.
  6.24 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: It is interesting to hear an hon. Member introducing a note of urgency in a matter which has taxed the House for many years. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) wants urgency injected into the matter. If he is sincere he could show that sincerity by contacting the Conservative Members of the Committee and asking them to make their contribution.
  It is a matter of conjecture and not of certainty whether postponement of the revaluation will bring advantages or disadvantages, but the Second Reading of the Bill gives the House an opportunity to say something pertinent about its own responsibilities for the consequences of local government reorganisation. Once and for all we must stop tinkering about with local government and leaving local councillors to stew in their own juice, particularly when they have heaped upon them the ire and discontent of their constituents.
  Local government has passed through a traumatic experience since the passing of the reorganisation legislation. The councillors have been malinged because the public, understandably, cannot see where the cause of the trouble originates. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who did so much to pilot that legislation through the House, knows full well that he and his Government were warned repeatedly that there was no correlation between the size of local authori-
  1304
  ties and efficiency. One general guideline is that the larger the local authority the higher are the unit costs of servicing. I can remember putting before the right hon. Gentleman comparative figures in connection with my plea for Hartlepool and Cleveland against those of other authorities at county level.
  Much of the general chaos in local government and many of the high costs and the difficulties which exist between the authorities and the people they represent originate in this House. In the past we have been too much involved with the presumption that all we have to do is pass legislation and then pass the buck to the local authority.
  The Government have acted very quickly since they came to office last March. I hope that they will accept the concern which now exists as I have described it. They have set off in the right direction. On coming into office they gave immediate relief to some authorities. They introduced an improved rate rebate scheme and they set about organising the independent inquiry. They did other things to help, and my hon. Friend the Minister met many local authorities and travelled widely to assess for himself the position which had developed.
  There are many calls from hon. Members for getting rid of the rating system, but just how sincere are they? Last November the right hon. Member for Crosby said that it would be irresponsible for rates to be put into the melting pot. That was only two months before publication of the White Paper on the rate support grant in January this year. The right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon) went further. He showed his complete faith in the correctness of the rating system by announcing that the money was simple to collect and the system was easy to administer and that therefore it was right. All this was swept aside at the election by the Conservative plea that we should get rid of the present system of rating.
  I have got news for anyone who listens to that kind of talk. For years and years there have been study groups, working parties, and various responsible bodies in local authorities all intent on modifying or getting rid of the rating system. God knows how many White Papers there have been on local government financial

  1305
  structure, but they have all ended up with one basic conclusion—that the rating system has to stay.
  Those of us with local government experience know that there must be an element of a rating system if we want to have freedom in local government. We cannot have a democratic situation in which people have the right to a close, personal contact with local government councillors and officials unless there is some financial responsibility at that level.
  We on this side of the House are intent on reforming and reshaping, whereas any pretence from the Conservative Party that it wants to get rid of the rating system is in complete conflict with that party's other claim that it believes in freedom in local government. The Conservatives cannot have their cake and eat it.
  Mr. Graham Page: There is greater responsibility by the local authority to its electors if all the electors pay for the finance for the local authority, and pay it at a rate settled by their local authority —in short, local income tax.
  Mr. Leadbitter: The right hon. Gentleman may feel that he has a reasonable point, but he had all the opportunity to take action on that when he was in office, but he had to wait until he was out of office before trying to help, with his Bill for a national lottery. He came to the House with that Bill after he left office, not with his present suggestion.
  I say to my colleagues on the Government Front Bench that I believe that they have started out quickly and pertinently to clear up the mess created by the Conservatives when in office. I ask my colleagues to go a little further and take on board total parliamentary and Government responsibility for this matter and to say to the general public that councillors are not responsible for the present situation.
  It is the current thing to have a social contract. Let us, therefore, have a new contract with local government, and say that we shall tell the people exactly about the extent to which we are going to be responsible in the future. So as to aid the achievement of that situation we should arrange for local authorities to tell us much more about their capital works proposals, their servicing and costs. We
  1306
  can then have a new relationship in which we can get rid of all the grave anxiety now existing among electors and ratepayers, by making Parliament's views and conclusions fully known.
  I hope that the Bill will be accepted upon the basis that was announced earlier in the House. I hope also that the House will be satisfied that, having time to deal with revaluation, we shall use that time to clear the decks and enable the public to understand where the troubles lie in local government.
  6.33 p.m.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) have put the case against the Bill very well.
  My constituents are deeply worried already about the tremendous rate burden that they have to bear. They had been greatly looking forward to the return of a Conservative Government pledged to reduce the domestic rate burden immediately by one-quarter by removing from local government the cost of teachers' salaries and the costs of the fire and police services and then completely recasting the domestic rate system, thus making the burden much fairer as between one citizen and another.
  Instead of such relief, my constituents are now getting this Bill sprung upon them at short notice. It was not mentioned at the time of the General Election or in the Queen's Speech. It is a Bill which will intensify the unfairness in the present rating and valuation system.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) and I put forward a Private Member's Bill in the last Parliament to try to eliminate some of the factors in the valuation system which cause the greatest resentment among householders. Unfortunately, like many other Bills, it fell because of the General Election.
  Now we have what I can only describe as this most miserable Bill. I have been extremely interested about how often hon. Members on the Government side have used the phrase "on the face of it" when speaking about the Bill. The trouble with the Bill is that we cannot take it at face value. Never before have I heard anyone

  1307
  whom I would normally regard as an intelligent Member put forward such an idiotic reason for not consulting local authority associations as did the Minister in opening the debate. If he had tried that argument on a trade union he would have had a riot on his hands, if not a lynching party.
  There should have been proper consultations before the introduction of the Bill. Partly because of the lack of consultation, partly because of the haste and partly because of what has been properly referred to as political gerrymandering, the Bill will only increase the unfairness between one ratepayer and another. Some properties rise in value while some fall, but their valuations remain for two, three, four or even five years.
  The Minister would have done much better had he used his not inconsiderable energy to reduce the burden of rates and to get rid of the injustice of charging householders for services which they do not receive by withdrawing the statutory instrument, introduced by the Secretary of State for the Environment in March, which obliges local authorities to levy rates for sewerage services on all properties regardless of whether they have those services.
  I have in my constituency 3,000 properties which do not receive sewerage services. I urge the Minister yet again to get the occupiers of such properties exempted immediately from the rate charges for sewerage services.
  I am totally opposed to the Bill. We shall do all in our power to get it mightily improved in Committee.
  6.36 p.m.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I did not intend to join in the debate but I have been stung to do so by some of the remarks from the Government side of the House. The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) said that it was an innocuous Bill, and the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) said he did not know what all the fuss was about. The general consensus on the Government benches has been feigned astonishment that we on this side of the House should take objection to the Bill.
  1308
  I believe that there are three causes for concern. It is right that I should put these matters to hon. Members on the Government side. First, this year's rate increases have been absolutely appalling in my constituency. There have been increases ranging from 40 per cent. to 100 per cent. Just how bad the position has become is illustrated in a letter I have received from a constituent. The letter states:
  "You will have had many letters from this area commenting on the enormous increases in the rates demanded from 1st April 1974—my own are up from £61·92 per annum to £102·18, which makes the free French letters and 1 p off milk and bread not such a good bargain.
  I'm too old for the first item and too fat for the other two."
  The good humour of Burton people should not obscure their real anguish.
  In my constituency the rate increases have caused widespread alarm. There are many reasons for these appalling increases. One reason arises from local government reorganisation which took place at the behest of the House before, I am happy to say, I became a Member of it.
  Another reason is inflation, and we can all put forward various factors explaining that. A further reason is a reduction from 19p to 13p in the rate support grant in my area as a political measure by the Government when they took office in February, and yet another reason is some increase in expenditure by the Labour-controlled county council.
  I put forward yet another reason—revaluation, which is what we are talking about today. Revaluation was delayed by up to 10 years by the last Labour Government. That so distorted the valuations of many houses in my constituency that whereas they would have been meeting rate increases of 60 or 70 per cent., in the end they had to meet rate increases of over 100 per cent.
  Therefore, we do not regard the Bill as innocuous. We believe that we should make a fuss on it because it is extremely worrying to any hon. Member who is concerned about the distress caused to his constituents. That is my first cause for concern.
  My second cause for concern relates to the Government's statements on whether the rate system is to remain with

  1309
  us. I wish to draw attention to some remarks by the Secretary of State for the Environment in February, when he said:
  "At a time of high taxation, taxation should be higher under a Labour Government if we are to carry out our social programme. We shall never find another source of as much money as accrues through the rating system."
  That statement, coupled with the total failure of Labour to put into its manifesto any suggestion on the lines of the Conservative proposal to abolish the rating system, gives one cause to think that the Labour Government take the view that either the Layfield Committee is likely to report that the rating system should remain or the rating system will remain whatever Layfield and his committee say. That means that the distortions will continue. If that happens, it will cause even more distress to my constituents. That is my second reason for concern.
  If the Government were to say that there should be no rating by the end of a Parliament, I see a reason for introducing the Bill at this stage. As things are, however, there certainly seems to be no reason for delaying the measure until 1981. We know that the Layfield Committee will be reporting in 18 months or so, but that by this Bill there will be no implementation of revaluation before 1981. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said that there was no point in waiting until 1981 for revaluation because there would be no market for domestic rented accommodation or commercial property on which any revaluation could take place. I agree.
  My third cause for concern relates to what the Minister for Planning and Local Government said about the reason for delay. He recalled the reason given by Mr. Richard Crossman for the last rating revaluation postponement, namely, shortage of valuers. I am a relatively new Member of the House and am inclined to accept what parliamentary figures say in the House of Commons. Therefore, when the Minister goes on to say that the reason for delay in rating matters was the existence of the Layfield Committee, again I tend to accept what he says.
  But one's confidence in the reasons given for the delay by Socialist Cabinet Ministers is undermined when we know the reason given in a television interview on 18th February 1963 by Mr. Crossman.
  1310
  The reason had nothing to do with the shortage of valuers. Mr. Crossman said:
  "I being a cynical politician said 'This is something we can well postpone. We can do nothing but lose votes on this and the rates will go up.' "
  If that is what Mr. Crossman said when being frank, I must be forgiven when I hear yet another reason given for delay by a Minister in the House—especially since we know that the Bill is being introduced a short time after the election, during which Labour politicians no doubt assured their supporters that they would do something about the rates. They therefore proposed to postpone any reassessment which might increase the rates.
  Those are my reasons for taking part in the debate. It is right that we should make a fuss about this so-called innocuous measure. It is our duty as an Opposition to speak out against such measures. It is a measure in which I can see no good and I believe that in the longer term it may do much harm.
  6.46 p.m.
  Mr. Hal Miller: I apologise for not being present during the earlier speeches, and I am grateful for this opportunity to talk on the important topic of rates.
  I begin by congratulating the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Planning and Local Government. I well recall the assiduity with which he listened to an Adjournment debate which I was fortunate enough to initiate in the House concerning the financial situation which local authorities faced following the designation of new towns. That matter is still in the forefront of the minds of the Hereford and Worcester County Council. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some hope that action will be taken to help us.
  I shall not detain the House with a large number of general points and shall not try to make party political points. I wish to emphasise the fact that the burden on the domestic ratepayer—and we all know that those in council houses are also affected—has become insupportable. Yesterday officers and officials of my county council came to the House to see the six Members of Parliament for the Hereford and Worcester area to complain about rate increases. Next year

  1311
  the rate increase will be some 60 per cent. merely to maintain current services, quite apart from any growth. The prospect is appalling. They asked their Members of Parliament to obtain certain assurances about help in respect of rates. They want assurances over cuts in services.
  We all understand that in a critical situation some services can no longer be maintained at levels we all wish to see. Cuts in services comprise one of the ways in which the man in the street will be given a true indication of the economic difficulties confronting the country.
  The county council wanted the Government to give some direction as to which services should be considered for reductions so that there may be throughout the country some uniformity of treatment, although we appreciate that there will have to be variations in local services. We in the Hereford and Worcester area were fortunate in August in securing a visit by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. He then undertook to examine the elements of the formula of rate support grant since as a county we are put at a disadvantage. I shall not bore the House with the technical details, but we hope that some consideration has been given to this matter and that we shall soon hear the results.
  It is a great disappointment that the Secretary of State for the Environment has not felt able to speed up rate support grant payments since a number of authorities have great difficulty in meeting their current bills. My child attends a village school and I know that the form mistress has to go round factories in the Black Country getting waste paper on a Saturday morning to provide material for the children to do their work. Therefore, I am well acqainted with the severity of the situation and I hope that the Government are also aware of the position. It is a serious matter and must affect the morale of professional people of all grades in trying to carry out their jobs.
  In this postponement of revaluation there is no recognition of the severity of the situation. I mentioned this omission from the Gracious Speech in an earlier debate. Here, we are presented with a Bill which postpones the revalua-
  1312
  tion which is due in 1978, but that is already too far away to be of any benefit to ratepayers, and it is disappointing that the first measure on rating proposed by this Government postpones from 1978 to 1981 any hope that some alleviating action will be taken.
  My reason for opposing this measure is that it affords neither revenue to the local authority nor relief to the ratepayer.
  6.50 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) said earlier in the debate that it was pretentious to call this measure a General Rate Bill. He may be right. It is a very heavy title for an extremely short Bill. Throughout our proceedings today, I have been wondering whether the title had put off the Opposition from attending the debate because they were not sure whether they would be asked to debate the Bill or pay it.
  Nevertheless, it has been an interesting debate, in the course of which the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) castigated the Government severely for introducing the Bill and then promptly left the Chamber. We have not seen him since. What is more, throughout most of the debate there has been no Opposition Whip present and, with one right honourable exception—and that right hon. Gentleman's loyalty and devotion to local government as well as to his party is greatly admired on this side of the House—
  Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that there has been no Whip on the Opposition Front Bench. I am sitting here as a Whip.
  Mr. Oakes: I wish that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) had resumed his rôle as Opposition spokesman on local government and environment matters. But it is hypocritical of the Opposition to castigate the Government for this measure, pretending that they are so interested in ratepayers and are concerned that the Bill will affect them adversely, when they do not bother to attend an important debate of this kind. I might point out that for most of the debate the Government benches have been well filled, whereas nearly all the Opposition benches have remained unoccupied.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can it possibly be in order for a Minister to make such a misleading statement? A great many of my hon. Friends and I have been present during most of the debate, with only the odd minute or two out of the Chamber.
  Mr. Oakes: I dislike being discourteous, but the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) has been one of the worst offenders. For most of the afternoon she has been in and out of the Chamber like a yo-yo.
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: The Chamber will seem crowded in comparison with the number of hon. Members likely to be present for our next business concerning the National Theatre.
  Mr. Oakes: We all know the reason, of course. Opposition Members have other matters on their mind which are taking place upstairs at the moment and which they regard as being more important than a postponement of rating revaluation.
  Perhaps I might re-state the purpose of the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government said at the outset of the debate this measure merely postpones revaluation from 1978 to 1981, and it does so because the Government have set up the Layfield inquiry into rating. I stress to both sides of the House, because I know hon. Members are worried about delay resulting from the Layfield report, that we want that report as early as possible.
  Layfield's terms of reference are to report as soon as possible but not later than the end of 1975. That committee is undertaking, on a completely independent basis, the examination of the whole of local government finance. It will report next year. I suggest that it would be stupid for any Government to set in motion the whole of revaluation at a time when we are very short of valuers in the Inland Revenue, with the result that they were put to work on something which might be totally outdated by the time that the Layfield Committee reported.
  I accept that the Opposition are honest. They are people of integrity. I say that especially of the right hon. Member for
  1314
  Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). I accept that if they had been in Government they would have done what they promised, namely, during the lifetime of this Parliament to abolish domestic rating. Had that happened, whichever Conservative Minister survived the volcanic convulsions going on in the Conservative Party at the moment would have appeared at this Dispatch Box to introduce this same Bill—
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Nonsesnse.
  Mr. Oakes: It would be a nonsense for any Government to proceed with revaluation and to waste scarce resources on it when the whole of the rating system and local government finance is in the melting pot.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the exceptional financial difficulties facing local government, will he indicate to us that his Government are prepared to announce additional financial aid for local government to enable it to get through the next year or so before the Layfield Committee reports? That is what we want to hear. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to see ratepayers taking action of the kind that the miners took and that the farmers are taking at present? I hope not. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared in the not-too-distant future to put real proposals before us showing that the Government are prepared to assist local government through the next two or three years?
  Mr. Oakes: If I were to attempt to do that, I should be ruled out of order immediately. But I can assure the hon. Gentleman that within weeks there will be an increase order, which is fully debatable on an affirmative resolution of the House, and subsequently the Rate Support Grant Order for 1975–76. What is more, I can undertake that that will come this year. It will not come in February, as it did from the previous Government earlier this year, when we were fighting an election.
  I am afraid that I am wandering away from the purpose of the Bill and getting out of order. I shall return to the matters with which I want to deal in winding up the debate.
  The hon. Member for Hornsey attacked the Government on a number of counts.

  1315
  Throughout his speech, he implied that in any event the Layfield Committee would propose no substantial change to the rating structure. That theme went right through the hon. Gentleman's speech. He was not expecting any changes from the Layfield Report. Therefore, he insisted that it was foolish for the Government to put off this revaluation.
  I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Hornsey make such an implicit assumption. He attacked the measure. He said that it was not our desire to save the time of valuers. He said that it was a habit of Labour Governments to introduce measures of this kind because they feared the electoral consequences of revaluation. If the hon. Gentleman were present, I should thank him for the confidence which undoubtedly he has in a Government who have a majority of only two or three, because his implicit assumption is that we are likely to remain in office for a period of four if not five years. If that assumption were correct it would be 1979 before the election came—after the effect of the 1978 revaluation.
  The other assumption made by the hon. Gentleman—I saw it in a leader in The Times and it has been suggested by other hon. Gentlemen, again with the honourable exception of the right hon. Member for Crosby—is that this measure is necessary only because of our proposals to bring land into community ownership. I only wish—I know this wish is shared by my right hon. Friend—that the valuers who do this work for the Inland Revenue were the type of valuers that are available to do that, because we are keen on bringing this measure forward. But as the right hon. Member for Crosby clearly and honestly said, they are not—unless they leave the Inland Revenue service and enter local government service. It will be local government valuers who will be doing the revaluation, not Inland Revenue valuers.
  On the face of the Bill, we accept that there is at present a shortage of valuers, and there has been for decades. Therefore, even if this revaluation does not take place, valuers in the Inland Revenue service at the moment are doing a tremendous job with, for example, the enormous backlog of appeals against rating
  1316
  assessments. That is filling up their time. It is not that they are being switched away from their present work to work on bringing land into community ownership. There is no connection between the two, as my right hon. Friend told the House at least three times. I was delighted that the right hon. Member for Crosby, knowing the difference between local government valuation services and the Inland Revenue valuation service, endorsed that point.
  I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's timetable. If the Government were genuine, and it was Layfield causing the delay, he wondered whether it could not be a shorter period. If he were satisfied, on the three-year period, that we were saving valuers' time in order to see how Layfield came out, he said, he would look at this measure with more support and confidence than at present.
  If the right hon. Gentleman works out the timetable, he will see that that is almost precisely what the Government are doing. Let us assume pessimistically—one must be fair and assume pessimistically on these matters—that Layfield will not report until the end of next year because of the enormity of the task before it. I sincerely hope that it reports much earlier, but one must, in government, expect the longest period. With Royal Commissions or with any commission of inquiry it is usually safe to do that. Let us assume that that is the case. That report must be considered not only by the Government, not only by the House, but at great length by local government. That will take about a year. The hon. Gentleman was quite right when he said that legislation would be unlikely to be brought forward until the end of 1976, and probably not until 1977.
  All that time people will have been working, because this revaluation should start now for 1978. There will be busy people, where there are few of them, busily working, and possibly working at something of no avail to them. That is what we are seeking to avoid in the Bill.
  Mr. Graham Page: This is the whole crux of this debate. Speaker after Opposition speaker has stressed the urgency. Cannot we get the Layfield Report earlier? Cannot the local authority associations be ready to consider it quickly

  1317
  and cut down the period the hon. Gentleman mentions to a year instead of three years?
  Mr. Oakes: On the timetable that I have given, even if the committee reported before the end of next year, I think we might say a year. There might be a two-year delay for the revaluation rather than a three—year delay. I give the right hon. Gentleman that point. The Government have cautiously asked for a three-year period rather than a two-year period. I will concede the year, but I believe that we are wise to allow for a three-year period.
  I know—hon. Gentlemen opposite and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) clearly made this point—that there are criticisms of the Bill. There are matters in the Bill that, frankly, the Government regret. However, on balance, rather than waste the valuers' time, it is important that we put back the revaluation. One reason, referred to by my hon. Friend, is that when revaluation is postponed the effects on such things as central heating, and so on, mean that certain people are paying less as their house has not been revalued and the rest of us are marginally paying more. But the Government considered that that price was well worth paying, in view of the tremendous amount of work involved for the Inland Revenue over a four-year period when revaluation takes place.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South was right. The longer revaluation is delayed, the greater the jump for the individual in the amount of rates he has to pay. That is another consideration to be borne in mind. Again, we seek to avoid that and it is one of the reasons why we have laid down a three-year and not a five-year period. We did not want to skip a revaluation. We wanted a new Act to make the period three rather than five years.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) aptly expressed the purpose and reason for the Bill. He got it right in one—it is to save manpower. I suggest that it is, too, an earnest of the Government's good faith in our intention to listen closely to what Layfield says. We shall not pursue
  1318
  our own path as though Layfield did not exist.
  If we were not postponing revaluation, some Opposition hon. Members would say, at Question Time or in debate, "Despite the fact that you have a committee of inquiry looking into the rating system you are clearly going to do nothing about it because the valuers are scurrying about the country now, getting ready for the 1978 revaluation ".That is the accusation that would be made. They would say that we were wasting the valuers' time. We should be wasting the valuers' time if we were not to postpone the revaluation in the special circumstances that apply today.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) asked me two questions. He wants an assurance that the records of valuation will be kept. I suggest that that goes without saying. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, and I take his reason for making it. I shall pass on that suggestion because, whatever Layfield may decide, those records would be invaluable for the structure and basis of whatever form a new system might take if Layfield were to suggest a system other than the present one—as indeed it might.
  The hon. Gentleman asked as well for an assurance that the out-of-date assessments on nationalised industries would be considered, possibly in the revaluation. I may be wrong, but I believe that, technically, nationalised industry and Crown property do not normally come within the orbit of revaluation. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, that the basis of Crown rating and of the way we assess nationalised industry should be examined in detail by the Layfield Committee, because it may find a better system in those sectors. I have sat on the Opposition benches and raised those issues in respect of our present rating system, and I therefore give the hon. Gentleman those assurances.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned, rightly, the degree of hypocrisy that has come throughout the year from the Tory Front Bench on the whole question of rating. On Second Reading of the Local Government Bill on 12th November 1973—almost exactly a year ago—the Conservative Government had before them from the Labour Opposition a reasoned amendment asking for a Royal Commission on

  1319
  rating. On looking through my speech on the winding up of that debate I am astonished at how prophetic I was about the outcry there would be about rates this year.
  The right hon. Member for Crosby said that it would be foolish and a retreat to set up some other form of inquiry in view of the fact that the Conservatives had had a Green Paper and a White Paper, and that therefore the present form and state of the rating system was to remain.
  What a sea change we have seen since February of this year in the attitude of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. I should say to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight that the one Liberal who was present at the debate came into our Lobby with us on that occasion, so I hope we may have his support on this Bill today.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) said that the Government had treated local authorities in a rather cavalier way in not having had consultations about this before the Bill was introduced. Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment nor any of my hon. Friends intended to treat local government in a cavalier way. On looking back on similar public measures one sees that such consultation has not beeen the rule. Never in the past has consultation taken place about whether a Bill should be introduced to put back revaluation. Nevertheless, we do not want to hurt the feelings of local authorities.
  On balance, I regret that more consultation did not take place with local authorities at that time, but that is not to espouse the argument of the hon. Lady the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), who said that this was never mentioned during the course of the election or in the Queen's Speech. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment issued a Press notice that this measure would be introduced in September this year, long before the election, and he notified the associations at that time. It is not true to say that we have suddenly pulled this rabbit out of the hat since the Queen's Speech last week and had not mentioned previously that we should bring a measure of this kind before the House.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) wondered whether it would be pos-
  1320
  sible to ask the Layfield Committee to speed things up. Although the hon. Gentleman would not be bitterly opposed to the Bill going through, he hopes, as I do, that the report from the Layfield Committee will come before the end of 1975. I repeat that I hope that it comes before the end of 1975, but the task we have given that committee is very big.
  The Government are prepared to listen to the reasoned arguments of experts of all political persuasions, and of academics and people in local government, sitting for the first time, as far as I know, at an independent level looking at the whole system of local government finance. We have set up that inquiry, and we are prepared to listen to its findings. The Bill evidences our intention. We did not indulge in the sort of sweeping statement that we heard—probably only because of the election—all through the election period that all domestic rating would be abolished during the lifetime of the next Parliament, regardless of the inquiry, on which Conservatives sit, regardless of what the committee thought, and with no evidence being given to the House or the country about what system would be put in its place.
  Mr. Hurd: Is it not a fair point that this has all been inquired into fairly recently? The hon. Gentleman's files must be heavy with evidence. Local authorities and local authority associations were lavishly consulted only two or three years ago. Surely that evidence is available to the Layfield Committee. It did not start from scratch.
  Is the hon. Gentleman aware that what he has said this evening has deepened my gloom about the timetable? He now says: Layfield by the end of 1975; 1976, consultation with people who have already been consulted; 1977, legislation. What does he see as the earliest year in which changes proposed by Layfield can he effected? Does he think that the present system will survive until then?
  Mr. Oakes: I can only say to the House that we must be realistic. The committee is looking at an involved and complex subject, with new authorities, not the old authorities which were consulted previously, and with the explosive inflation that we have had in the rating system and local government finance. I

  1321
  endorse the hon. Gentleman's call for speed. I hope that the Committee will report earlier, but I cannot give the House an indication of what timetable an outside independent body will have in reporting back to the House, except to say that its mandate from the Secretary of State is to report before the end of 1975—which, given the circumstances, was the longest possible time we could allow it. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, often, committees not given a deadline date sit for years, not months, in considering such a complex question.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) outlined clearly what the Labour Government have done to help the ratepayer—direct financial help in July as well as an inquiry into the rating system. The Opposition, therefore, cannot accuse us of being iron-hearted towards the suffering ratepayers.
  We are hoping that the inquiry will find a better system of local government finance. We say that it would be foolish, indeed, for any Government to use the scarce resources of valuers to engage now and for the next few years on a full revaluation of rating property, regardless of the fact that the Layfield Committee is sitting and may well recommend an entirely different system of local government finance. If further assurance be needed, I again assure the House that that is the reason, the true reason, the only reason for the Bill coming before the House today. I ask the House to accept our good faith and to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

NATIONAL THEATRE BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
7.17 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Hugh Jenkins): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am particularly glad to be able to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
1322
It is the last political necessity relating to the building of the National Theatre, and it so happens that when I was on the old London County Council—a dozen or more years ago—I moved the first motion which led eventually to the construction of the great building on the South Bank.
Incidentally, buildings take a little time to grow into the public heart. Even the one in which we stand has become truly revered only during my own lifetime. Victoriana was not quite so well looked at a score of years ago as it is today.
Throughout the years, there has been no public political division on the subject of the National Theatre, and I hope that there never will be—tonight or at any other time. There has been a great deal of argumentation and to-ing and fro-ing behind the scenes, but I should like to pay tribute both to the old London County Council and to the Greater London Council and to the leadership of both parties, particularly Sir Isaac Hayward, who was the leader of the LCC, and to Sir Reg Goodwin, the present leader of the Greater London Council. Without those two men, there would be no National Theatre.
The House will recall that there have already been three Acts of Parliament on the National Theatre—in 1949, 1968 and 1973. These raised the limit of the Government's financial contribution respectively from £1 million in 1949 to £3·75 million and then to £5·7 million in 1973. The GLC has likewise raised the original contribution by the LCC from £1·3 million to its present authorised level of £4·68 million. A smaller contribution from the Shakespeare Memorial Trust took the total resources available in 1973 to £10·55 million.
The task of bringing the project to completion has not been an easy one, either since the passing of the 1973 Act or before. Building work on the main structure and on the fitting out of the theatre has proceeded more slowly than had been hoped. In part this was due to delays arising from the three-day working week last winter. There has also been a shortage of some categories of workers and a shortage of some crucial materials.
In spite of these problems, the costs in excess of the limits set in 1973,

1323
indicated in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill, are not out of line with the general rise in building costs for large projects since work on the National Theatre started in earnest in 1969. Over the whole of that period, the cost of the building—and there have been difficulties, problems and changes—has been rather less than the average cost attributable to similar buildings. In addition, the House will bear in mind the uniqueness of the project, which has meant that the board and the contractors do not have a series of comfortable precedents to guide them.
For all these reasons, it will not be possible for the theatre to open on 23rd April 1975, as originally hoped. It is now for the National Theatre Board to decide the new opening date.
It was clear earlier this year that the 1973 figure of £10·55 million would be overspent. The Government and the GLC, therefore, entered into urgent negotiations for a solution to these problems, with the result which I announced in a Written Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) on 31st October, from which I quote:
"The Government and the Greater London Council have, subject to seeking the necessary authority from Parliament and the council "—
that is the GLC, of course—
"for their respective contributions, reached agreement to provide the necessary resources to complete the National Theatre notwithstanding the further substantial rises in costs which have been encountered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October 1974; Vol. 880, c. 6.]
The Leader of the Council, in consultation with the leader of the minority party on the council, Mr. Horace Cutler—never at any time, so far as I am aware, has there been any party difference in the GLC on the matter—has agreed to recommend a contribution up to £1 million, or 50 per cent., whichever is the lesser amount, on the understanding that the balance of expenditure would be met by the Exchequer.
The Bill seeks authority to remove the present statutory restriction on the total Government contribution to enable the building to be completed. It is expected that the Exchequer contribution, due to the rising cost of building, will be in excess of £1 million. New arrangements have been made with the South Bank
1324
Theatre Board to control this expenditure. This arrangement is, of course, subject to endorsement by the Greater London Council and to the enactment of the Bill we are now discussing.
I turn now to the text of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to remove the statutory ceiling on the Government's contribution to the project, so that, in agreement with the GLC, the National Theatre building can now be completed as quickly as possible. This should not, however, be read as a resignation by the Government and the GLC from continued control over the costs of the project—far from it. I have always thought and have said in previous debates—and I believe the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has said something similar—that it is a mistake to write into main legislation financial limits on expenditure.
For the National Theatre project a much more flexible but no less severe control is needed. This we and the GLC have set in hand. It will be noted from lines 11 and 12 of the Bill that no contribution by the Government can be made without the consent of the Treasury. We have specified that additional resources can be used only for completing already approved work. There can therefore be no question of new requirements being added to the various contracts simply because the statutory ceiling on expenditure is being removed.
Indeed, I venture to suggest that it is perhaps a pity that throughout the whole of the experience of the building of this theatre we did not have the methods of control that we are now commending to the House rather than the successive statutory limits, which as some of us pointed out in debates at the time would be bound to be eroded by the inevitable process of inflation.
I should like to comment on the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, particularly the second sentence. Although it is not possible at this stage to make an accurate estimate of the final total of additional contributions required, it is expected that the excess costs will be not less than £2 million. The GLC is considering later this month a recommendation that it should contribute to this excess, as I have said, up to £1 million, or 50 per cent. of the costs, whichever is

1325
the less. This means that the Government contribution is expected to be not less than £1 million. Payments will be spread over 1975 and 1976 on the present timetable put forward by the board.
This great project will exemplify the curious and rewarding fact that our people and our language have made perhaps their most significant contribution to world culture through the medium of the drama. We are, in the National Theatre, declaring our pride in the power of our language to communicate and in the ability of our creative and interpretive artists to express themselves in terms which will move us and perhaps reveal humanity to men and women.
It is, of course, possible to argue that this can be done anywhere—in the street, if necessary—without all this capital expenditure. We can obviously have drama without theatres—
Mr. John Ellis: We have it here all the time.
Mr. Jenkins: As my hon. Friend says, we make our contribution occasionally to that end in the House. Theatres are increasingly expensive to build. But it is impossible to imagine that this country can continue to play the leading rôle it now performs in the theatrical life of the world if we accept the argument that the small, the cheap and the old are good enough for us. There is a place for the large and for the small. Are we to accept the argument—surely not?—that we must never make a gesture, that we must never stretch ourselves, that we must not take risks? The artist is in the business of taking risks. That is what art is about to a large extent. It is the job of those who support the artist to enable him to do so. The multiplication of State support for the arts in the last 10 years has taken place in parallel with the building of the National Theatre, and I think this to be no accident.
By putting more money in at the top, one gradually raises the proportion of State and municipal help at all levels. It has been a matter of some concern that privately-owned buildings can stand empty and yet appreciate in value. Centre Point is the great example of that. The Government have no intention of letting that happen to this imaginative publicly-owned building on the South Bank.
1326
All those seeking public support for the arts should perhaps recognise more clearly than they do that they sink or swim together. It is not the case that if very small sums of money are spent in the capital the money which is not being spent in the capital will then be available to be passed out to the regions. These things go hand in hand, and, while the actual proportion—even with the National Theatre—of the Arts Council's resources which is being spent in the capital is a declining proportion of the total, simultaneously with the building of this great theatre we have been pushing more and more money out into the regions. That is a process which was carried out under the previous administration, I freely admit, and it is a process which we intend to maintain.
We cannot survive through arguments about the various shares of the cake even before it is decided how large it should be. For the New Statesman of all journals to reach the conclusion at this stage that the whole project is a mistake is enough to make Kingsley Martin turn in his grave.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: That paper is generally wrong.
Mr. Jenkins: I shall not extend into an argument with the hon. Gentleman on that matter, but on this occasion we are at least agreed that it was wrong on that point.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I moved a motion a dozen or more years ago, when I was on the old LCC, saying that we should build this theatre. It was carried unanimously. It is now my task to move the last legislative stage in its construction. I do so happily and with confidence and pride. I move the Second Reading of the Bill, and I ask the House to approve in the determination that the National Theatre will be not a millstone but a milestone, that it will not detract from its fellow theatres but will, under energetic direction, set new standards of achievement.
7.33 p.m.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I am very pleased to give the Bill a warm welcome. The Opposition fully support it in principle. Bills with fixed sums upon their faces are always rigid instruments. That, I presume, is why

1327
the Treasury is so fond of them. But inflation has made this sort of fixed-sum Bill a quite impossible device.
The last National Theatre Bill was in fact—if I may include a modest passing reference to myself—introduced by me at the Dispatch Box five days after my appointment to ministerial office, which, appropriately, took place on 5th November 1972. It was 10th November that the second instalment of the National Theatre saga was received with a welcome by all parts of the House. It added £1·35 million to the Bill. I had hoped—indeed we had all hoped—that that would be enough, but it was proved not to be so.
On that occasion the speech from the Opposition Front Bench was made by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)—far from late, but very much lamented. We rose and fell together. He was dismissed by the Prime Minister and I was dismissed by the people—vox populi, vox dei, sed vox diaboli, vox Wilsoni. Fortunately both of us are still here and neither of us seems to have suffered from those adventures. Perhaps it is because we have followed the advice of Mr. Jimmy Durante who said, "Be nice to people on the way up, because you meet the same people when you are on the way down."
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to give that advice to the Prime Minister?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Prime Minister, I think, has always followed it, which explains why he has survived for so long.
That this Bill is now necessary is no one's fault. I do not blame it on the present Minister. It cannot be laid at the door of my noble Friend Lord Eccles. The hon. Gentleman is always so anxious to blame things on him. It is due to the demon of inflation, which is threatening the whole of our society, our institutions, and the future of the National Theatre.
The costs of this theatre, in themselves, are not astronomic. We are told that another £2 million will see the project through. Altogether, the theatre will cost about £12 million. If one compares it with a building such as the Sydney Opera House, which cost two or three times as much, allowing for inflation, it is not a
1328
very expensive project for a country which is still, despite our difficulties, as rich as our own.
This project is of immense importance for the future. Long after the dreary echoes of our economic debates have died away, long after today's economic theorists have been dismissed and no one takes an interest in their disputes, the effects of this theatre will be real and important, affecting the lives of millions of people—their outlook, their horizons, their whole vision of life. It is a much more important project than anything else that has been discussed today. I am sorry that there are not more hon. Members here. But, after all, as we know, quality is much more important than quantity. You know that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. After all, there is only one of you. How, indeed, could there be two?
It is curious that at this moment, which should be a moment of triumph, 70 years on from that great dream of Sir Israel Gollancz—which he had in the more spacious and stable year of 1904—when it is about to become a reality, the critics are at work. The gnats—I mean, the rats—the rats are gnawing—
Mr. Cormack: The gnats are gnawing, too.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: When I mentioned "gnats" I was thinking of the New Statesman, which is a sort of gnat —a gadfly. It is extraordinary that there should be this carping, although I am not surprised at the New Statesman. It is a paper that has always acted as a jackal, snapping at the heels of various causes, and it is now at the heels of artistic progress. I agreed with the Minister when he termed that leading article headed "The National Theatre Tragedy" a disgrace, because that is what it was. It was a disgrace that it was written, and it would be a calamity if anyone were taken in by it.
I suppose all great ideas, when they come to be achieved, suffer from a period of reaction. People who have campaigned for a long time for something tend to get exhausted. After all, it happened in Italy after the Risorgimenta. After the great efforts to unite Italy, it was Fascism which eventually supervened. Our own efforts to enter the European Community were crowned with success a short time

1329
ago after so many years, yet now we are in a period of disillusionment with the Community.
It is the same with the National Theatre. Once it is seen that a project can be achieved, the critics feel that they have a licence to raise their voices. Therefore, let us discount some of this criticism on that ground. Let us discount also the jealousy that there is, and what I may call—I hope without offence—the sheer theatrical bitchiness which exists and which is being directed against the National Theatre Board by some people in the theatre world.
There is another point that is much more important and much more real. There is a fear amongst those interested in the theatre that the theatre elsewhere in London and in the provinces will be starved of funds to finance the National Theatre. That is a genuine and not unworthy fear. I hope that it will not happen. Indeed it must not happen. A national theatre bought and built at the expense of the living theatre elsewhere in Britain would not be a national theatre at all. It would be better not to have it, if that were the price that had to be paid.
We must always consider the theatre in other parts of the country, and we must consider the interests of the commercial theatre as well. On this point, I hope that the Minister will finally bestir himself on behalf of the Criterion Theatre and press his colleague the Secretary of State for the Environment to hold an inquiry into the fate of that theatre to stop it from closing, because once a theatre is closed its future is radically and permanently affected.
Mr. Faulds: This is a slightly tendentious matter about the Criterion, but I should like it put on record that I raised this with the Secretary of State for the Environment. In a letter to him some weeks ago I suggested that an inquiry should be held, and I am still waiting for a reply. I do not know what the Under-Secretary is doing about this matter, but it is urgent.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I am not sure how lax you will be in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but perhaps it might be worth while, since the matter has been raised on both sides of the House, to say that the Criterion matter is one in which both my right hon. Friend and I are closely
1330
involved. At the moment it stands between the Greater London Council and the Westminster City Council. I personally have no doubt at all that the Criterion will be preserved for its proper theatrical use.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I intervene in this dialogue? I am glad to hear the Minister's expression of faith, but I was not asking for faith; I was asking for works, which is another matter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warley, East on his zeal in this cause. I wish that the zeal on the back benches on the Government side was matched by an equal zeal on the Front Benches.
Mr. Faulds: Please do not praise me.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman must bear it as best he may.
The economic position which we face is grave, but if we look at the actual figures involved, we see the whole question of the National Theatre and its financing in proper proportion. The whole of the arts budget is £18·8 million, compared with a budget for education alone of nearly £4,000 million. The Arts Council is asking for an extra £6 million to save us from what would, indeed, he a major national disaster, the loss of one of our great cultural institutions, such as the English National Opera, Covent Garden or the Royal Shakespeare Company. From those calculations of need, the needs of the National Theatre are excluded.
How much will the National Theatre need? It is not only a question of erecting the building. Just as important, and more expensive in the long run, will be keeping the National Theatre going. The figures which I have show that occupancy and management will cost £1·15 million a year, that the Olivier Theatre will cost £1·95 million and that the Lyttelton Theatre will cost £2·5 million—a total of £5·6 million—and these figures refer to the subsidy that is required from the Government, leaving aside whatever revenue may be obtained from the box office, which, of course, is a variable figure.
That is a large sum in the context of the arts budget but it is not a large sum in the context of the Budget as a whole—a couple of bolts on Concorde, perhaps. But it is vital that that money should

1331
be provided and that it should be guaranteed by the Minister today.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman has it wrong. The fact is that the subsidy for running the building, without anything else happening, is £1·15 million. The Olivier 'theatre only—the hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted the figures —will cost a subsidy of £1·95 million, and to operate the Olivier and the Lyttelton Theatres will require a subsidy of £2·5 million. That is a total. He is mistaken in adding these figures together. Also, the figures which the hon. Gentleman has are estimates for the needs of the theatre itself, and they will have to be subjected to the usual close scrutiny to which the Arts Council subjects all estimates brought to it.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. He has resources to make use of which I do not have. But whether or not those figures should be treated as cumulative, the point is absolutely valid—that the subsidy revenue must be guaranteed by the Government, and we want a statement that that will be done. Will the Minister give that guarantee now?
Mr. Jenkins: I cannot give any guarantee other than that which I have given, that it is not the Government's intention that this building should become a sort of public Centre Point.
Mr. CormackCentre court.
Mr. Jenkins: A centre court perhaps—it may well do—but not a Centre Point. As to confirming specific figures, it is not possible now.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is a totally inadequate assurance, because the future of the theatre is already a matter of public debate. At this very moment articles are appearing in the Press. Discussion about the theatre's viability is widespread, and this would have been an ideal opportunity for the Minister to set these doubts and anxieties at rest.
The general theatre grant is £3·2 million. Those are the figures from the 1973–74 Estimates. I have not the figures for 1974–75. I hope that there will be no question of reducing that annual grant to theatres outside the National Theatre in
1332
an effort to pick up some money for the National Theatre.
Mr. Jenkins indicated assent.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman is nodding. I take it that that is a guarantee of a kind. What can we do in this very grave situation for the National Theatre? One solution would be to finance it at the expense of others. Fortunately we all reject that. The Minister has rejected it this evening. The Opposition rejected it. Mr. Peter Hall, the director of the National Theatre, has rejected it. The whole vision of what the National Theatre could accomplish, being a centre both for regional visits from other companies and itself sending out companies to the regions, would vanish if this were so.
Second, one could be cheeseparing and start cutting down, as unfortunately the director of the National Theatre has already had to do. He has had to cut down on his future programme. Some of the auditoria might not be opened. A saving could be made on production by cutting down the expense, but I think that would be a disastrous recipe. The National Theatre is one of the finest buildings we have in Britain and the productions should be worthy of the building and worthy of the concept.
Yet another expedient which has been put forward is to save by merging the National Theatre Company with the Royal Shakespeare Company. One might save something in that way but it would be at a very heavy artistic cost. By a happy accident of history we have two national companies, one competing against the other. It is as though one of the fantasies of the Secretary of State for Industry had suddenly been realised in the artistic world, one national institution competing against another. We have that position by an accident of history. Let us not sacrifice it. Furthermore, it would be very bad for the theatrical profession. It would reduce the opportunities for employment in a profession which already suffers the burdens of unemployment to an extent unknown to any other profession in the country.
The Royal Shakespeare Company has its own character—predominantly, not totally, Shakespeare, predominantly a classical repertoire—although I think it is

1333
right to go for other activities, such as the contemporary dramatists or experiments such as the Space Theatre in Stratford.
I therefore reject that proposal and hope that the Minister rejects is at well.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins indicated assent.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is that a nod?
Mr. Jenkins indicated assent.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am delighted that that should be so and that we are of one mind on this most important question.
So we are left with only one alternative, which is to find the money that is necessary for this project. I do not believe that the arts need any other justification than themselves. I am a strong believer in arts for arts' sake, but for the purpose of an argument to appeal to the economist and the economically-minded one should say that the National Theatre will pay for itself in invisible earnings in a short space of time. People flock to Britain because of our theatrical tradition. They come here to go to the theatre. It is possible to get into the theatre in London before one's holiday is over, which is quite impossible in a city such as New York. Thus, far from being a white elephant, this is much more likely to prove a golden one, which will fully justify any capital investment that is made.
I believe it is necessary to set at rest the minds of others who are concerned with the theatre in Britain. I would therefore put this suggestion to the Minister: why not make the special grant for the big four—namely, Covent Garden, the National Opera, the Royal Shakespeare Theatre and the English National Theatre—a separate grant-in-aid, payable through the Arts Council, but as a separate accounting matter? In that way the Minister would effectively allay the fears of those who think that the Arts Council will pay for these big projects at their expense.
We put forward this suggestion in our policy document issued during the election by my former colleague, unfortunately no longer with us, the former Member for Ipswich, Mr. Ernie Money, to whom I should like to pay a tribute for his work for the arts. Following a telephone conversation this afternoon, I know that
1334
it is also favoured by the chairman of the Drama Panel of the Arts Council, Mr. Jack Lambert, the most distinguished literary editor of the Sunday Times. So I hope that serious consideration will be given to this point.
I have put a number of questions to the Minister. When he replies to the debate I hope that he will answer them, and that he will amplify the nods, which are welcome but which it is hardly possible to register in HANSARD.
Do the sums which are involved here cover all the equipment that the theatre will require? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what will happen to the Old Vic when it is vacated? This is most important. For that matter, what will happen to the Young Vic, which carries so many of the hopes of our theatrical future? Is it intended that all the three auditoria at the National Theatre should be opened and used from the beginning? What will happen to the Cottesloe auditorium? We have had the Minister's assurance against the merger with the RSC, but I should like him to comment on the suggestion I have made of a separate grant-in-aid to the Arts Council for the theatre and the opera.
I have one final point, which is perhaps the most important of all. We must consider the Bill in the context of grants for the arts as a whole. This is a real moment of truth for everyone in the House who is interested in the arts, because we must know where the Government stand on the financing of and aid for the arts. On Tuesday night we received a severe shock when we heard the Leader of the House say in English less than elegant—it is not the English we object to, but the sentiments enshrined in that execrable grammar—that the art galleries, the theatres and the ballet will have to tighten their belts.
What does that mean? We have a right to know. If actors are being asked to tighten their belts, let me tell the Minister of some figures given to me this afternoon by Equity. In the West End theatre it is only since January 1974 that the minimum weekly wage has been £33 and until recently commercial actors in the provinces received a wage of £18 a week, which has recently been raised to £30 a week. The most recent survey made by Equity estimates that the average annual median earnings of actors

1335
are £1,000 a year and of actresses just over £500; this is because the median number of weeks worked in a year for actors is 14·5 and for actresses 11·5. Equity estimates that between 50 per cent. and 75 per cent. of the profession are unemployed at any one time.
There is not much scope for the tightening of any belts there. Nor is there scope among the directors of art galleries who are struggling against the most appalling inflationary burdens to keep the doors of their galleries open and the ordinary services ticking over. I hope we shall have a clarification of the Government's position from the Minister this evening.
Does the Minister who represents the arts share those sentiments? If so, it is disgraceful. The rôle of the Minister for the arts—so well fulfilled by the Minister's great predecessor, Lady Lee—is to be the titular head and spokesman for the entire range of professions who are involved in the arts and all who work in the field of art.
We expect the Minister to be the champion of the arts in Britain. Other Ministers are allowed freedom of discourse about issues such as South Africa. Why should there not he freedom of speech about the arts? Why should not the Minister take advantage of the opportunities that his colleagues have and let his mind be known? If he does not, all confidence in him in the artistic world will simply evaporate.
I must tell the Minister, without being too censorious, that his record to date does not give us great hope or encouragement. Those gradiose projects which he outlined before coming to office have vanished without trace. We have not heard a word from him on the question of exempting the work of living artists from value added tax. At least during the election we pledged ourselves to support the project put forward by the European Commission for the abolition of VAT on all in the art world, and we said that we would implement it as soon as it became Community policy.
The Minister's record on the wealth tax is appalling. Instead of pressing the Chancellor for exemption for the great collections in our country houses, the great works of art which are so valuable to this country, he has lain supine—[Interruption.]—yes, supine—at the feet
1336
of the Chancellor and has done nothing to champion the cause of the arts. The hon. Gentleman has allowed the interests of finance and of one Department, the Treasury, to trample over the interests of the arts which he is meant to be protecting. Yet it is to protect the arts that he is on the Front Bench.
The truth is that at a time of economic crisis, when it is going to be much more difficult to achieve our material goals, we should spend more, not less, on the arts. We may not be able to achieve material things, but at least we can achieve our spiritual and artistic objectives. The sums are absurdly small. Even in time of war, when we were facing our greatest peril, we followed a policy of spending more on the arts than had ever been spent before.
There is the further point that for a very small investment we get immense returns. The theatre above all has been one of our greatest achievements. Drama with poetry and the novel form a splendid trinity of achievement in English literature. That, after all, has been our lasting conquest. Long after the last rays of the sun have set over a vanished empire the conquest of the English language will remain. It is the tongue that is spoken throughout the world and that people want to hear worthily presented in the British theatre when they come here.
I realise that the powers of the Minister who has responsibility for the arts are limited. They are not great in terms of political power. Indeed, those who are obsessed with a false philosophy of glittering prizes would not envy the Minister. The position of Minister for the Arts is one not of great power but it is one of great influence. He has the power to set the tone of discussion in the artistic world and to champion the cause of the arts.
If the Minister fights the battle for artistic values, we shall support him. There is no desire on our part, nor on the Liberal benches, to make this a party political matter. However, if the Minister fails to stand up for the arts both inside and outside the Government, if he shows lack of courage or of persistence, then we shall not forgive him. We shall show him no quarter. The test of a Minister's worth is whether he can fight for the causes for which he has been given responsibility. The test in this case will be not only whether the Minister has the money

1337
for this building, which he has, but whether he will obtain generous Government financial support so that the National Theatre can be a worthy showpiece for works of the greatest literature ever created.
8.5 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Strauss: While the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) was speaking, I was hoping that I would be able at the end of his speech to say that I agreed with him in every respect. However, towards the end he turned to make a very unfair attack on my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, who fights as keenly for the arts as anyone possibly could, and I would obviously differ from the hon. Gentleman on that score.
On other matters, and on his general approach, I agree with him—with one exception. I doubt very much whether his idea of having a separate Arts Council grant for the four major recipients of Arts Council money is really a workable device and whether any Chancellor would agree to it. It would appear to be an obvious trick to make other recipients of Arts Council money believe that they are not in competition with the major recipients.
When the matter arose in the House many years ago, I was doubtful whether the amount of money then proposed for the building of the National Theatre was sufficient. My scepticism was born of experience. I questioned whether the £7½ million would be enough. I was assured by the Minister then responsible, now Baroness Lee, that this was so. I should like to quote the exchange that took place at Question Time on 21st March 1968. I asked my right hon. Friend:
"What will happen if, in view of rising costs for building the theatre, the final expenditure is more than is anticipated?"
Her reply was:
"I think that, with £72 million … if we cannot build a splendid theatre, we all ought to jump in the Thames."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March 1968; Vol. 761, c. 566.]
No one has done so. No one has given a lead. Obviously someone ought to do that, because long before the recent rapid inflation occurred, the original estimate was greatly exceeded.
1338
We are all delighted to know that the National Theatre is nearing completion. After many long delays, which have been exceedingly inconvenient to the management of the National Theatre, to artists and to technicians, it is approaching completion. We hope that before long it will be in operation. All those who have had the privilege of seeing it must agree that it is, indeed, a magnificent building; that it is highly functional and not lavish; that the many stages are equipped with devices which will enable any producer to indulge to the full his imagination and to put on stage tricks and stunts, hitherto unheard of.
When it comes to subsidiary but very important matters such as back-stage accommodation and dressing rooms for the actors, the new National Theatre will, I believe, be better than any theatre in the world. I consider the architecture of the building magnificent, although inevitably it has been the subject of a good deal of criticism.
As the hon. Member for Chelmsford said, now that the building is completed and nearly ready for occupation, many distinguished people—I am not talking about the New Statesman—in the commercial theatre and subsidised theatre are getting worried about the money which the National Theatre will absorb. Their anxiety is understandable. I hope that it is not justified. Some of them have written a letter to The Times. It was signed by the leading members of subsidised theatres, not only in London but also in the regions. They said, in effect, "With all this money which the National Theatre will need if it is to survive, what is to happen to us? Shall we be restricted?" To that question there has to this day been no satisfactory reply.
These questions and criticisms would have been more appropriately raised by these people when the whole idea of a great National Theatre building was first put forward. It was clear then that such a theatre could not operate without substantial subsidies from the Arts Council. In those days, however, the people concerned were full of euphoria and excitement at having this great theatre in London. Now the great day is here they are getting worried about it.
It is said that confession is good for the soul, and I confess that when this

1339
building was contemplated I was, I believe, one of the few people deeply interested in the theatre who was doubtful whether it was necessary or desirable. I took the view that what was wanted was a magnificent national company which had plenty of money from the Arts Council, which could employ the finest actors, producers and technicians, and which was exceedingly well equipped. I argued that a special great building was unnecessary, that "the play was the thing" rather than a theatre building and that difficulties would arise—especially financial difficulties—if such vast sums of money were put into a new theatre building.
I had in mind then that at the Old Vic, where the National Theatre has operated for many years, many plays, ancient and modern, had been magnificently produced. They had been staged there to perfection. They could not have been produced more effectively in a new theatre, however magnificently it might be equipped.
However, it is no good looking back to the past. We now have this exceedingly fine building, and the problem is what will happen to its finances. Will it be enabled to operate as it should? The Bill provides the money for the building, and that is fine. But the real question is will it be able to operate as it should through adequate subsidies. We have been told that the running costs will be enormous.
All hon. Members who are interested in the arts and the theatre must ardently wish that the Government will make the money available. We are particularly worried, however, by what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said the other day about actors and others having to tighten their belts. What he said may mean nothing or it may mean something. Perhaps all he meant was to say in a general way that we must be economic in what we do. I am sure that he did not mean that there would be reductions in the salaries of actors and actresses. He must have meant that there must be some reduction in the activities of the subsidised theatre companies, that they would not be able to spend as much as they were already spending, that they would not be able to produce the same
1340
number of plays, and that their activities would have to be restricted.
If that is the Government's view about the theatre generally—and I assume that my right hon. Friend was referring only to theatres receiving a subsidy from the Arts Council—if all these theatre enterprises have to tighten their belts, what on earth will happen to the National Theatre? Until we have a clearer statement from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, I and many other hon. Members will be exceedingly worried. We want definite assurances.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I think I can give my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) some assurance. I think that the views of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer are likely to be in accord with those my right hon. Friend has been expressing and with those I hold myself.
Mr. Strauss: I am glad to hear that. The idea of the National Theatre getting a substantial grant while money to other theatres is curtailed is abhorrent not only to us but to the director of the National Theatre. I quote in this connection a statement made recently by Mr. Peter Hall:
"If adequate funds for the health of the new National Theatre can only be provided by starving others, then that, to my mind, is a negation of what the National Theatre is about. It must be part of the theatre of the whole, contributing its facilities to everybody. Vice versa, the National Theatre has little meaning and little purpose if other theatres are weak."
My hon. Friend is encouraging in what he has just said, but his words are in contrast to what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said the other day. I hope that my hon. Friend's statement was made on the basis of a definite promise from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Theatrical, ballet and operatic enterprises which receive Government grants are now planning how to curtail their activities in order to save money. They feel sure that the Arts Council will want them to economise, or that the Arts Council will not in future provide them with the money that is necessary to maintain their existing activities, in view of world inflation.
I turn now to another matter which, though small, is causing considerable anxiety. I ask my hon. Friend the

1341
Minister to bear this point in mind. I do not ask him for an answer to it at the moment. People in other subsidised theatres are noticing that the National Theatre will not only absorb large sums of money, but will also make great demands upon human resources in the theatre, more especially, the higher technicians and administrative staff who run theatres. The demand of the National Theatre is such, and the salaries it is offering are so much greater than in other theatres, that there is fear of a considerable new financial burden being placed upon them.
I would not have taken much notice of this point had I not seen a letter signed by many theatre directors. I checked the truth of what they said. The National Theatre has been advertising for higher technicians, catering managers, box office managers and other staff and has been offering salaries immensely higher than in other theatres. This is causing disturbance—
Mr. Clement Freud: I wish to elucidate upon this point. At the Old Vic at present the average salary is made up of 25 per cent, basic pay and 75 per cent. overtime. The fact that the National Theatre advertises for staff at rates substantially in excess of the basic pay of, for instance, other theatre technicians in no way means that people will be paid more money in full.
Mr. Strauss: I hope that that is so, but my information is different. I have found, for instance, that people in managerial and higher technical jobs have been astounded by the salary being offered by the National Theatre compared with what they are now getting. I do not want to argue this across the Floor of the House, but I could give details of a number of cases.
We have now got a fine National Theatre, and we have everything to make it a success. We have actors and actresses as fine as those anywhere else in the world, and we have great playwrights. We have the finest stage equipment and we are fortunate to have a director of outstanding ability, whose experience and achievements in all avenues of theatrical life have earned deep respect throughout the theatrical world. All the ingredients are there to make the National Theatre a success. It is up to
1342
us to see that the money will be available to ensure that facilities exist to enable them to function successfully. We can do this only by constant pressure on the Government.
Britain's economic standing and world influence has been waning in recent years, but our cultural reputation stands as high as ever, particularly our reputation in drama. That reputation we have enjoyed for centuries—even in the 16th century when a version of Shakespeare's plays was being produced on the continent.
In these days whenever I go to the theatre—whenever the Whips allow me to go—I find our theatres, particularly the National Theatre, the Royal Shakespeare and the Royal Court full of foreign visitors. Indeed it is often difficult to find a native there. It is a grand thing that people come from abroad to visit England and make a visit to one of our theatres a high priority. We must maintain that reputation. It is an activity in which England can still glory without shame.
We must see to it that whatever economies may be necessary, none should be imposed by the Treasury on the Arts Council. We in this country even now spend on the arts far less than many continental countries. The theatre, the opera, the ballet are great national assets. We must preserve them at all costs and not allow the Treasury, however desirous it may be to counter inflationary pressures, to impede the great national cultural achievements which we have so laboriously and successfully built up over the years. They must be allowed to continue and flourish.
8.28 p.m.
Mr. Clement Freud: When I left home this afternoon to come to the House, my 12-year old daughter asked what I was going to do. I said, "It is the National Theatre Bill". She said, "Will you have to pay?" I very much hope so because the National Theatre needs money badly.
We have heard a lot about the history of the National Theatre. The subject was first mentioned in Parliament—and I am afraid that not even the Father of the House will remember this—on 16th June 1848. There was a petition for a national theatre because the two theatres that the Italians and French had in London at the

1343
time were considered to be immoral. The petition was brought by a Mr. Webster and presented by the Earl of Fitzhardinge. The petition said:
"That the circumstances of Drury-lane and Covent-Garden Theatres being open for foreign, and not English performance, tended to pervert and vitiate the taste of the public, and to distract them from the love and patronage of the English drama. That Her Majesty's Italian Theatre in the Haymarket, and the French Theatre in St. James's, were known to be more than adequate…"—
in other words, for those with foreign tastes. Lord Brougham asked:
"Would it be any benefit to English workmen to have the theatre shut up?"
The report continues:
"He must take that opportunity of expressing the disgust with which he had read accounts of scenes which did such discredit to good sense.…"
It is strange that now, 125 years later, we should be perverting the nationals of France and Italy with our obscene theatre. But things move slowly. I do not want to make political capital out of this subject, although it was rather well done by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas).
In 1905 there was another reference to a national theatre.
"Mr. W. F. D. Smith (Strand, Westminster): To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has been requested to grant an annual subsidy towards the permanent establishment of a National Repertory Theatre."
Mr. Austen Chamberlain replied:
"Yes, Sir, I have been requested to lay before His Majesty's Government a proposal to grant an annual subsidy of £10,000. … I have replied that I am unable to recommend such a grant from public funds."
So at the beginning of this century £10,000 was too much.
On 21st January 1949 the Treasury announced:
"… it is estimated that it will cost about £1 million to build a memorial theatre … worthy of the name of Shakespeare and worthy of this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January 1949; Vol. 460, c. 440.]
There was much jocular conjecture in that debate about the political interference in a national theatre. It was thought that it might lead to the giving of plum parts to members of the Government or perhaps to their protegés. Looking round this Chamber, one hesi-
1344
tates to cast people directly, but perhaps the line of Lady Macbeth,
"Infirm of purpose, give me the daggers",
would be becoming to the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) in the present situation—
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Or the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short).
Mr. Freud: I leave the actual casting to hon. Members who may be fortunate enough, Mr. Speaker, to catch your eye later in the debate.
Mr. George Bernard Shaw advises about the House of Commons,
"Do not waste too much time in the gabble shop."
Looking round this Chamber, I see that that advice has been taken by about 621 right hon. and hon. Members.
I come now to the National Theatre on the South Bank. The situation is very simple. Here we have a theatre which has in one building three theatres, plus balconies, terraces and catering facilities. I suppose that I must profess an interest in that I am a member of one of the subcommittees.
Admittedly the project needs a lot of money, and, like all hon. Members, I am keen that this money should be given. However, what frightens me, in addition to the fear of the hon. Member for Chelmsford that if this money goes to the National Theatre it may be that other branches of the industry will suffer, is that having seen this theatre set-up there should be any reduction in the total plan.
There is the Olivier Theatre, which seats 1,100. There is the Lyttelton Theatre, which seats 900. Then there is the smaller Cottesloe Theatre. The figures that we have here, by and large, are the right ones. But, although at the moment the subsidy for every £1 earned at the box office would be £1·2 if the whole National Theatre enterprise ran as it should, if it were decided through lack of funds to have open only the Olivier Theatre the subsidy would rise to £1·8 for every £1 received at the box office. I submit that this is an appalling waste of money. The National Theatre, as a concept, is a great one, but to cut it now, to use it piecemeal and to lose the actors and the production facilities would be invidious.

1345
I listened to the Father of the House eulogising about the Old Vic, and I have fond, loving memories of it. But there is so much which cannot be done at the Old Vic, and there is so much expense involved in doing what can be done. I intervened in the speech of the Father of the House in order to explain about the high wages. That is one of the factors killing the Old Vic theatre. The creation of a repertory theatre which can go across the country as a touring theatre is so expensive that it is almost inconceivable. The ideal of having a different play on every couple of days, of having plays in repertory, is so expensive that much of the grant the Government give to the Old Vic is taken up in merely trying to keep more than one play for a long season, because that is the only way it can make money.
Mr. Strauss: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the National Theatre, when in its new building, will not play in repertory the same as at the Old Vic? Surely it will.
Mr. Freud: That is exactly what it will do. It will be set up to play repertory. It has enough sophisticated equipment within itself as it is projected now. It can do repertory without causing people to work 75 per cent. of their time at overtime rates. That is why the National Theatre is needed so badly.
Interference in the National Theatre scheme has been frightening. The job of Mr. Peter Hall and his men and women is not easy. In September 1969 the South Bank Theatre Board agreed to award the building contract to McAlpine's. It agreed to do this because McAlpine's said that three and a half years was the time it would take, and it was the best offer.
By February 1973 the completion of the new building had been retarded by 13 months. In March 1973 the current estimate went up another month. At the board's meeting in June of that year Sir Max Rayne reported the National Theatre Board's anxiety and he advised the board that February 1975 was the proposed date.
I ask the House to remember that all this time staff were being engaged or partly engaged, and put back, and that was no easy matter.
In July 1973 the National Theatre Board was told that June 1974 completion
1346
was the latest, after which a February 1975 opening could be achieved. In September of that year it was again put back.
The October meeting of the building sub-committee heard a report from Mr. Softly—a very good name, I submit—that there had been no improvement and work would have to be accelerated if the June 1974 target date were to be met. McAlpine's blamed lack of information. The December building sub-committee considered industrial disputes and forecast a completion six months later. In March it was again put forward.
So it has gone on. I will not bore the House with this, because it is very boring, but I will say that the National Theatre as we now have it is the best theatre we have ever had in this country. When it is completed it may well stand us in at £13 million, but if that building were erected today, at today's prices, it would be worth £35 million and would be a great snip at that price.
It is only our basic, national defeatist attitude, our strange reluctance to blow our own trumpet, that stopped us from proclaiming this and making more people realise what a fine building we have. I would be unhappy if the Minister did not get from the Treasury enough money not only for this imaginative project, but to ward off the fears of the hon. Member for Chelmsford. It is essential that we have not only a National Theatre that would be a showpiece, but a National Theatre as it was conceived. We do not want one as it might be when the Treasury has had its say, and closed down this and halved that, and stopped it from being carpeted or curtained or from having the right catering facilities, and so on.
The aim of the theatre is absolutely clear. It should go on the way in which it was thought out and conceived. It should not be seduced by the almost successful three-day week of the Tory Party. Unlike the results of the three-day industrial working week, I warn the Minister, audiences, if they came only once every other day, would spend no more money and would not listen any more attentively. They would receive nothing more.
Let us make it clear that delays mean money. I see that the Minister is speaking earnestly to his financial advisers

1347
even now, and I am grateful. But the longer the delays, the more money the project will cost. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Chelmsford that there should be a separate grant is excellent. That is the only way in which we may be assured that the National Theatre will get the money it needs and will not get it at the cost of other theatres.
"National" is a word dear to the Government, certainly the declensions thereof. I have opposed the word and my party has opposed it in its verbal form. I support it in its adjectival form. especially as a prefix to the word "theatre". We should like to see a National Theatre. We should like to see it stand on its own and not at the expense of any other theatrical venture. We do not want to see it at the expense of taking jobs from other actors.
Enough has been said about the parlous state of my trade union, Equity. A National Theatre would cost money; but so would the abolition of hare coursing and the many other measures, mostly destructive, which the Government have outlined in the Gracious Speech. I think we have enough destructive legislation. I should like to give my party's support to the Bill, the rejection of which would not only dissipate 120 years of forward thought but would cost hundreds of jobs and ambitions which are tied up with the project of a National Theatre.
8.36 p.m.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have been very interested in the debate because it seems to me that, so far, it has been exceedingly civilised and has covered a great deal of ground. There seems a great element of agreement between the various parties on the things they do not want to see happen to the National Theatre. But I have been a little thrown by the rather happy assumption that the Bill will solve all the difficulties in actually creating the National Theatre. I remind the House that the building is not completed. We have heard from the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) some of the difficulties that have been encountered up to this point in the production of the building.
When we talk about finance, we have not yet taken on board the simple fact that if one throws out a timetable for a
1348
major company such as this, one damages its economies in a fundamental way. If one has planned to have a company of over 120 and engaged a number of actors—if they are very good, they will be held to contracts for a considerable time ahead—one has definite financial commitments.
The situation is that, because the National Theatre is still not ready and does not have an official completion date, far from building up the administrative staff, the stage hands and the acting company, the National Theatre is now cutting back on the number of people employed.
Why is this theatre so late? There are always a number of reasons to be taken into account, but I was appalled to hear my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State say that it is for the National Theatre Board to say when it is to open. It is easy to be wise after the event and say that the actual building of the theatre should have been left to the people who would run it, but it seems extraordinarily odd that we have this division of responsibility so that one board is responsible for the building and another board will be required to run the theatre. This has caused considerable difficulty. The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), mentioned the problems that will be encountered by other theatres simply in the practical realm of stagehands and members of NATKE who work for the National Theatre.
Those of us who work in any branch of entertainment know only too well that NATKE is one of the unions which in the past two years has been faced with appalling redundancies. It has a number of members covering all the categories my right hon. Friend mentioned who are desperately in need of employment. If there is an easy method of attracting them to a new theatre, one suspects that this is not unconnected with the wage levels that are paid elsewhere in the country. I hope, therefore, that he will not be too misled by the propaganda being used when many of us feel that there are quite enough technicians available who would welcome employment and who are facing considerable difficulties outside.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) made an unprovoked

1349
and unwarranted attack upon my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. If there is one Member of this House who does not need to be reminded of the problems of Equity it is my hon. Friend. He has spent a great deal of his working life not only actively promoting the interests of actors but in doing everything possible to create better conditions for the live theatre and in helping the theatre as a whole to expand.
To threaten my hon. Friend that, unless the Government come up with all the amounts of money that we have been talking about tonight, we shall know that he has failed is quite unwarranted. I have known him for a long time and always found him a kind, good, honest man. Perhaps one should say that in Whitehall, in any Government, any Minister of the Arts should not be a good, honest, kind and reliable man. That is one of the difficulties that we have had to face. I would say to the hon. Member for Chelmsford that we hope to have his active support in asking for the kind of money that we need for the Arts Council grant when it comes up for examination by the House.
I confess I have a slight reservation. Any hon. Gentleman who seeks to speak for the arts who appears in an imperial purple shirt and a burgundy tie at the same time seems to be not necessarily the sort that one can automatically appoint.
Mr. Freud: Will the hon. Lady suggest what a spokesman for the arts should wear?
Mrs. Dunwoody: At the moment it would seem to be a fig-leaf, but, given the figures of some of my fellow politicians, I hope I shall not be thought to be making a political attack if I say I prefer to see them in the shapeless suits they normally affect.
Someone has to ask some hard questions. Why is the National Theatre so late? When will it be completed? Will it be even later? Her Majesty the Queen had graciously consented to open the theatre next spring, yet the theatre company now appears to have no idea when it will go into operation. It has budgeted on the assumption that there would be 2,800 seats, and we should remember that the Old Vic has only 750 seats. If
1350
the forward projection had been done on the basis of getting money from 2,500 seats, there would be considerable difficulty in having to stay with a theatre capable of seating a much smaller number.
Where will the provision for the administration come from? My hon. Friend will have to take that on board, much as I deplore the bitchiness of some members of the profession elsewhere in suggesting that the National Theatre could be funded only by taking money from other theatres. Merely to stand empty these three theatres will require more than £1 million in administration costs. So far as one can see, no provision has been made either in the Arts Council budget or anywhere else for that money to be found. It is hopeless to expect a theatre to be able to carry on unless those figures are substantiated by a considerable grant.
No one this evening has mentioned a fact about the National Theatre which is tremendously important to me. I am exceedingly lucky in my constituency. We have a live theatre which is loosely referred to as a "Victorian gem", which means that it needs a considerable amount of money for renovation, but it is a very nice theatre and it has a young and lively company. The director of the National Theatre has made it plain that one of the things he most hopes to do is to instigate a system whereby provincial companies can come to one or other of the London theatres and put on productions which they find successful in their own areas.
I should like to cite the original play that was done on the closing of the Shelton works. It was very popular at Stoke and was strongly supported by the people in the area. It was the best kind of live theatre because it arose from something that was important to the people. It was put into the most marvellously artistic terms and has been a very great success. I should have liked to see that put on the stage in London. [Interruption.] I hope that if the hon. Member for Isle of Ely is going to barrack me, he will do it so that I can hear him. It would help.
When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State replies, even if he can not assure us that the money is already

1351
earmarked for the new theatre and for its administration, I hope he will not listen to the suggestion that one can hive off one or two prestige-type projects and put them into a special category. I disagree very firmly with that and I would strongly resist any attempt to put such a measure through the House. The theatre in this country must belong to everyone. It should not be a middle-class prerogative. It ceased to have its real impact when it became very much the province of those who could afford to come to London and pay for very expensive seats. We want to go back to the time when it was of general interest to everyone, not to go on to the time when it has become an esoteric interest for a very small section of the population.
I hope that the National Theatre will be in operation as soon as possible. I hope that the extraordinary limbo in which the company now finds itself will be dealt with as soon as possible. Is the company to be built up? If actors and actresses of the calibre of Peggy Ashcroft and Ralph Richardson are having to say reluctantly that, although they have agreed to come to the National, they have other contractual obligations which they must fulfil and they are now not sure whether they will be able to play on the dates that were originally mooted, the theatre will start at a considerable disadvantage.
The gestation period for elephants is said to be two years. The gestation period of this theatre has been a great deal longer than that. We must take exceeding care that the propaganda currently being put out suggesting that even before it opens its doors the National Theatre has become a white elephant is refuted in every way that we can refute it in this House. It will be a centre of live theatre. It will be an exciting project. It will provide a great many jobs and a great many opportunities for people in the industry who at the moment are sadly lacking in this kind of chance. But it will do that only if we are realistic. If we in the House accept that money has to be found for this kind of project, it should be given all the support that we can possibly give it now.
If we simply provide yet more money but put no pressure on the builders to get the building finished, occupied and working, we shall fail in our job. If
1352
when it is working we do not make provision for its real costs, we shall fail in our job. I do not believe that it is my hon. Friend's intention ever to let that happen. He does not need to worry about the delicate dances of the hon. Member for Chelmsford, but he ought to be concerned about some of us who will be breathing rather loudly down his neck.
8.48 p.m.
Sir Anthony Meyer: I fully share and sympathise with the impatience—indeed, the exasperation—of the hon. Lady the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) over the delays in bringing this project to final fruition.
I have in a very humble way for the whole of my adult life been associated with this project. It was my grandfather who provided the sum of money necessary to keep alive in practical terms the ideas of men such as Sir Israel Gollancz, Bernard Shaw, Harley Granville Barker and others when they put forward the idea of a National Theatre. During the decades of official and public indifference which followed, it was only because of the help which my grandfather gave, and the persistent vision of a small handful of people, that the project remained alive.
At that stage there was a great deal of controversy whether a building was necessary to the project at all. I am convinced that without a building a National Theatre is a project which will be allowed simply to die in periods of great financial stringency, and even if only as a concrete symbol I am convinced that a building is necessary. I am sure that we are fortunate to have such a magnificent building as the one which is now, at any rate outwardly, approaching completion on the South Bank. I confess to having only a qualified enthusiasm for the texture of what one might call the pre-stained concrete in which it is built. But from the point of view of the outline, design and interior, it seems absolutely magnificent.
Those who were lucky enough to be present at that very exciting, and also very windy, topping-out ceremony may recall that, despite a very eloquent speech by Lord Olivier, the undoubted star of the occasion was the operator of the mobile crane, who had to lower a bucket of wet concrete in a very high wind on

1353
to a roof which was packed like a sardine tin and in which there was a space of about 18in square left vacant in the middle to receive the concrete bucket. He lowered it absolutely precisely, without a moment's hesitation, to one of the loudest theatrical ovations that I have ever listened to.
The project nearly faltered and died in the 1920s and 1930s. I must pay tribute to the post-war Labour Government, which was the first Government to give concrete help in financial terms to the project. I want to pay tribute—which I was not able to do when the Bill was last discussed because I had 'flu at the time—to one man who, perhaps more than any other, carried the burden of the day in the difficult years, particularly during and after the last war, and that is the late Oliver Lyttelton, later Lord Chandos, once the hon. Member for Aldershot. He used his very great talents, both as an administrator, politician and man of the arts, to negotiate and wheedle and bully in order to get the project adopted. It was he who talked the post-war Labour Government into producing what was then a very large sum of money, and who then negotiated with the LCC, and later with the GLC, the provision of that admirable site on the South Bank.
It turned out to be the wrong site. Some may recall that the foundation stone was laid—I am not quite sure where it now is—in the wrong place. When the Queen Mother—the Queen at the time—was informed that it had been laid in the wrong place and that it would be necessary to move it and asked whether she minded, her reply was that she did not mind a bit, and she could always come along in one of her crinoline dresses to conceal the operation of moving it to where the proper site would now be. Now the site has been chosen, and a very good site it is, too. The building is an essential part of the whole project.
Going back to Lord Chandos and to a point that has been raised about the Royal Shakespeare Theatre, not only did he talk the Government and London County Council into supporting it but he also undertook the very difficult task of trying to persuade both the Old Vic and the Royal Shakespeare Company into becoming part of the project. He suc-
1354
ceeded with the Old Vic, not without difficulties. One of the most formidable difficulties was the lady who was then the patron saint of the Liberal Party, Lady Violet Bonham-Carter, who held very strongly to the view that the Old Vic ought to maintain its independence.
Mr. Freud: Would the hon. Gentleman like to say that again?
Sir A. Meyer: I was referring to the erstwhile saint of the Liberal Party, Lady Violet Bonham-Carter, who held the very strong view that the Old Vic should maintain its independence inviolate. At one committee meeting after another she stuck very firmly to this point of view. Eventually Lord Chandos decided that he would take a leaf out of the book of certain elements in the Labour Party, and this normally most ruthless and efficient of chairmen used to conduct our proceedings with such intolerable dilatoriness, inefficiency and irrelevance, that ultimately Lady Violet was driven to total fury, got up, said, "I cannot waste my time here any longer" and flung out of the room, whereupon Lord Chandos concluded the rest of the business very briskly in the remaining five minutes.
In this way the union with the Old Vic was satisfactorily brought about. Unfortunately, what could not be brought about was the union with the Royal Shakespeare Company. I still think it was a great pity that this was not achieved, and I believe that one day it may be possible. It may one day be necessary to try to bring this about.
If financial stringency is such that it becomes necessary to cut down on running costs, I have a nasty sort of feeling that this will be the kind of solution that will be forced upon us. If so, it does not necessarily mean that there will be redundancies either among actors or stage hands. After all, the National Theatre Company needs to be a very large company, and by merging the National Theatre Company and the Royal Shakespeare Company the eventual result might well be something stronger.
All I want to do this evening is to congratulate the Minister. Despite the rather reserved reception given to his proposals by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), I think that he has done well, in the difficult financial circumstances in which we

1355
find ourselves today, to maintain the project alive. He has a fierce battle ahead to keep it alive, and I can assure him of the support of all of us on this side of the House who value, as he does—as we all must—the priceless heritage of the drama. There is not all that much in this country today that is going as well as we should like, but undoubtedly we still maintain our absolute primacy in the dramatic arts, and we must make sure that we continue to do so.
8.57 p.m.
Mr. David Crouch: The strange thing about this debate is that no one so far has raised a voice against the National Theatre. I certainly do not seek to do so, but it is nevertheless strange in a debate that only one opinion has been expressed in the Chamber, and that in favour of the Bill. It is right that it should be, but the National Theatre, situated in London, is not the only part of the theatre and its life in Britain today.
The National Theatre, situated in the capital, is important for the very reason that the theatre is prospering in the regions and in the provinces as it is. Only last night, speaking to a very distinguished architect, I asked him what he had built lately, and he said, "I am working on a theatre in Warwick for the university." When I asked, "With about 450 seats?", he said, "No. It is much bigger. It is nearer 600." He told me that during the last four or five years he had built a theatre in Sheffield and one in Nottingham. In Canterbury, the smallest city in England, we have long had the Marlowe Theatre, so appropriately named, but in the last five years we have built a second theatre, the Gulbenkian, in the university.
That is the story of the progress of the theatre in our country. It is not happening only in London—it is happening all over the country, in the regions. It is a very important point to put in the scales as we talk so strongly today about the need for the National Theatre in the national centre of the theatre and drama—in the capital, in London.
What is worrying all of us tonight is that next Tuesday the Chancellor is coming to the House to present his Budget, the way having been prepared for him by the Leader of the House the other day in his closing speech in the debate on
1356
the Address—the way having been prepared possibly for the Chancellor to wield an axe over some of these things that we feel we can no longer afford.
The Leader of the House went so far as to mention the arts. While we have the assurance from the Minister tonight that the National Theatre is to proceed, I am very worried lest in the aftermath of the realisation of what the forthcoming Budget means, the Government may have to turn their big guns on the Minister and say that the axe is to be held over the National Theatre, and perhaps the National Theatre will have to be put into mothballs.
As the hon. Lady the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, one of the dangerous aspects of the National Theatre at present is that it is not finished. It would be so much better if it were finished at this time before we have to consider cuts.
It has also been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and many others that it is not only the capital cost which we are now having to concede and recommend should be increased but the need to ensure that there is sufficient money to enable the theatre to continue.
I know that many arguments will be raised, not only in the House, as to the need for the National Theatre to continue. We are all aficionados of the theatre here tonight, but there will be others in the House who will not feel so enthusiastic for this artistic project. There will be many people in the country who will place their priorities on things other than the arts after next Tuesday.
I therefore make a strong plea that in this debate it is not just an occasion for each of us to agree with the other, but an occasion for us to use this moment to say why we believe that the National Theatre should proceed and why, after it has been built and opened, it should proceed successfully and be sufficiently well supported.
I will not go further into the figures which have already been bandied about tonight about the minute amount of money we spend in this country on the arts and the theatre. One of my vivid memories is of what the Austrians did after the war. In Vienna they established as a first priority the building of the

1357
State Opera House. No one can say that their priorities were wrong, because Vienna is still one of the great centres of opera in the world, not only of singers and conductors but of people who are interested in opera and are drawn to that city to see a great new opera house for the support of the love of opera.
I hope that there is no question of anyone saying that one of our greatest heritages, the theatre, should be put into mothballs and allowed to fend for itself. I believe most fervently that that National Theatre must go ahead.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) and my hon. Friend the Member for Flint. West (Sir A. Meyer) speak about how long this project has been before us. It is something which I have lived with since I was a boy keenly interested in the stage. The idea of not having a national theatre was anathema to me when I was at school. It seems extraordinary that this country, the home of Shakespeare, the home of Kean and of so many great men of the theatre, drama and language should not have a national theatre; that we had to make do with the best that we could get. Admittedly, some of the theatres in London were great, because of the people and the actors and the plays performed there, and because of the atmosphere which the London theatres created.
The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), who I understand is not speaking tonight, could speak with more feeling than anyone about the atmosphere which the stage and theatre in London and the whole of the country are able to create. He has done much to help create it.
The National Theatre is a wonderful concept. It is the result of inspiration, not only from Lord Chandos, to whom I grudge no shred of praise, but also from within the theatre, led by Lord Olivier. I remember hearing him speak in a Committee room about the concept. What encouraged me was that this was not just the architect at work, or the engineers, or the GLC or the Government; the theatre was making its contribution to the very structure that it wanted to take part in creating.
The theatre and Lord Olivier have been fortunate, in having as the architect Denys
1358
Lasdun who, in my opinion, is not only one of the greatest architects in Britain but certainly one of the leading architects in the world. I do not dislike the use of concrete. We have seen his work in the University of East Anglia and in the Royal College of Physicians on the outskirts of Regents Park. We are fortunate in having such a design.
At last, over 100 years since the idea was first mooted, we are to have a building worthy of one of our greatest arts, one of our greatest contributions to the heritage of western man—drama and the theatre. It is a great concept. It is based on the essential need in the live theatre for contact between the actor and the audience.
No one in the three theatres in the National Theatre will be more than 65 ft. from the stage. No one will be so far away from the stage that he will not be able to study the actor's face. Those were the words used by Lord Olivier when he spoke at the meeting to which I referred. The essence of the live theatre is that the audience should play a part in the production of the atmosphere created from the stage. The reality of the live stage is the contest between the performer and the audience. That is the union that must be developed if the acting is to come alive.
I maintain that it is only in such circumstances that the great moments of the theatre can be created. After all, the theatre is the birthplace of acting, from which have grown the cinema and the television play. We have all seen great films and television performances, but the memories that we most treasure, that grow rather than fade, are from our experience in the theatre when we have actually seen the play performed, felt the actor's power and heard the effect of his voice with our magnificent language. Such occasions can come only from the intimacy of the live theatre. That intimacy has been retained in the design of the National Theatre. That is why it is a big step forward and why I am desperately anxious that we should not let the axe fall on such an enormously important project.
I can remember so much from the days before the war when, as a schoolboy and a young man, I used to queue for the gallery. In old terms the price of a gallery ticket in those days was 1s. 6d., but what a feast one got for it. One could

1359
hear and see Shakespeare and experience the beauty and drama of a theatrical production.
Britain is the centre of the art of acting and London is the centre of our theatrical life. We must provide a modern base in London to serve not just London and its tourists, though that is important, but the whole country. The National Theatre must fan out from its base and serve the regions, but it must also provide a home in London, the centre of our great artistic achievement, for those in the regions to visit and show their art. I believe that we need a revival in the arts.
I have heard much said in criticism of the New Statesman. In the latest edition of the New Statesman, however, there is a most interesting article by the director of the National Theatre, Peter Hall.
Mr. Cormack: He is for it.
Mr. Crouch: Naturally, but at least the editor allowed him to publish his article. Mr. Peter Hall believes also in reviving the arts. I shall close with this quotation, because it is most appropriate:
"The beginning of the new National Theatre comes at a time when we are low in spirits. We need a reviving symbol. And the theatre is very alive and very necessary in times of crisis."
I do not think that I could use words any more effective than those.
9.12 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: I shall not detain the House for long. This has been a very interesting debate. It is very refreshing when the House can unite on a particular issue. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred with some criticism to the sartorial elegance of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). But I am glad that her hon. Friend on the Government Front Bench has his battledress on and is ready to go into action against the Gradgrinds of the Treasury.
Perhaps it is particularly appropriate that the Paymaster-General has entered the Chamber during the last few minutes. Cultured and civilised as he is, I am sure he will do all that he can to march shoulder to shoulder with the Minister responsible for the arts to make sure that this project and many others are not only
1360
sustained but that the Government devote increasing attention to them.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) will not be speaking in the debate tonight.
Mr. Faulds: The hon. Gentleman will tempt me to it.
Mr. Cormack: That is the object of my saying this. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is saving his skill to deliver the prologue when the National Theatre is finally opened. No one could do it with greater panache or a greater sense of the rhythm of the English language than he.
The words with which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) ended his speech were extremely pertinent. In this House we frequently and quite glibly debate the expenditure of enormous sums of money. I believe that on Monday we shall be debating again the Channel Tunnel—the most expensive hole in history. No doubt before very much longer we shall be debating the new parliamentary building again. The House gave approval, less than a year ago, to the expenditure of £30 million to create a comfortable environment for ourselves.
We talk as though the money spent on the National Theatre is a vast sum. How perverted have our priorities become, how distorted our sense of values, when we can, with a nod and a wave, cheerfully bid farewell to countless millions of pounds of the nation's resources and yet, when it comes to the arts, which sustain and uplift the spirit of man, we think that we are being generous with a million pounds for historic buildings and a few million pounds for the theatre? Then we even pause and consider. I hope that the present Government will reconsider destroying at a stroke some of the priceless artistic heritage of this country with the threat of the wealth tax and all that that implies. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, quite rightly, would rule me out of order if I elaborated on that point, but my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford on the Opposition Front Bench referred to it and it bears repetition.
It seems to be commonly agreed that we are in a state of national crisis. At such a time we need more than ever to

1361
be uplifted and inspired. We in this place have singularly failed to inspire people over the last few years. It is from the arts that many people get their solace and contentment, if they are able to get it anywhere. When the country faces some of its darkest days perhaps for decades, we ought to be determined to spend even more, relatively speaking, on the arts. I say "more, relatively speaking" because with £50 million one can do a vast amount when it comes to the arts. It is a small sum in the budget of the country but it is an enormous one in terms of the nation's heritage and culture.
There is a commercial side to this matter. It has been touched on by several of my hon. Friends—I say "honourable friends" advisedly—on both sides of the Chamber. Millions of tourists come to this country and they come more than ever for what Britain offers in the way of tradition, spectacle, heritage and history. One of the things that they are determined to do when they come to our capital city is to go to the theatre. The money that is attracted by the presence of a living theatre, something that is developing and enhancing our traditions, is enormous. We should never think that we are being munificent and subsidising something from which the country will get no return. The country will get an enormous return from a successful National Theatre, a return out of all proportion to the money we are talking about this evening.
There is one thing which I am just as concerned about as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). It would be wrong in extolling the virtues of this project for us to forget the theatre in the provinces. I am particularly glad that the Lyttelton Theatre, part of this exciting project, will stage productions from Britain's regional theatres. There will be a degree of cross-fertilisation which can only benefit drama as a whole and our national artistic heritage.
Therefore, as we come, I hope, towards the close of the final chapter in the preliminary story of the National Theatre, I hope we shall be determined to make sure that it inherits one motto from a particular commercial theatre. When it is
1362
opened let it carry, at least in our hearts and intentions, the motto "We never close", and let it always be there as a hallmark of Britain's artistic greatness and excellence.
I welcome the Bill and I hope that the Government will ensure that what we are doing tonight will be followed up in the future by every sum that is necessary to sustain this exciting and invigorating new project.
9.18 p.m.
Mrs. Renée Short: It is not often that the House has an opportunity to discuss the theatre and support for the arts, and I welcome the unity that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) has referred to in the House on this issue. I apologise that I was delayed outside the House and so did not hear the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Minister. I would certainly support, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) in what she said about him, and all of us know he has worked extremely hard to get more support, financially and otherwise, for the arts. The whole House will support him in that.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) referred rightly to the support given by some other European Governments to opera, ballet and the theatre in their countries. It is true that every country in East and West Europe does a great deal more to support the arts than we do. We certainly get our theatre, opera and ballet for chicken feed. The support we give to the arts is a measly £17½ million or £18 million a year now. The figure has grown quite a lot since the noble Baroness Lee was the first Minister responsible for the arts some years ago. But it is a small amount for us to spend.
Of course, the small companies are concerned that the large companies and the Royal Shakespeare Company seem to get the lion's share of that money. I do not share the optimism of the hon. Member for Canterbury about the theatre in the provinces. I am most concerned that in many parts of the country theatres are in the doldrums. Theatres in the West End are closed because the money cannot be found by the commercial theatre to put plays on.

1363
In many parts of the provinces theatres are playing to small audiences. Our job, on both sides of the House, is to do our utmost to try to stimulate interest and enthusiasm in the arts and the theatre among all sections of the community. Industry has a part to play here. It could, for instance, support theatres in the towns where it is situated by various methods, such as by taking block bookings which would be made available to employees. I believe that industry could help the theatre without the task becoming onerous.
We also have a great responsibility to stimulate interest in the theatre among young people. The teaching profession has a responsibility here, too. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would agree that there is a considerable task in this regard.
We ought to be able to persuade or cajole television companies to help. These companies cream off much of the talent that has been trained in our drama schools, which are among the best in the world. I support all that has been said by those hon. Members who have paid tribute to the standard of theatrical attainment in this country. We have the best actors and actresses in the world bar none, and we also have the best drama training.
It is a lamentable state of affairs that actors and actresses, after gaining eminence in the theatre, are creamed off by television companies and are seen, mostly, only on the small screen, earning a great deal more than they would in the theatre. Television ought to be persuaded—if it can be persuaded—to put something back by way of supporting the living theatre from which it gains so much. I am concerned about the state of the theatre in the provinces.
I support the director of the National Theatre in what he hopes to do when the theatre is completed. But I utter a word of warning. The idea that there must be cross-pollination in the theatre is both necessary and desirable. In this way good theatre in the regions, if supported by grants from the Arts Council, can be seen in London, but this will be an expensive exercise. Companies will need money if they are to come to London from the provinces. Accommodation
1364
will have to be found for actors, who will also need to have extra subsistence allowances for living in London, and there will be other costs.
We all need to put as much pressure as we can on, I suppose, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that money is channelled through the Arts Council to support the best of our theatre, ballet and opera in the provinces as well as in London.
The delay in the completion of the new National Theatre is of great concern. So is the escalation of costs, which are now more or less double what they were at the start of the project. I understand that sub-contractors are holding up the completion of the theatre. This is happening notably on the electrical side of the job. Much of the equipment is of a new type that has not been installed in any other theatre. This type of installation is expensive. Some of the work has been sub-contracted to small firms, and has proved to be more complicated technologically than the firms had expected. Some of these firms have had difficulty in coping with the work. Some do not have the resources to do what is required.
We want to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister about the completion date for the new National Theatre. The opening of the theatre has been postponed on a number of occasions, and the date of January 1975 has now been abandoned. If Her Majesty is to open the theatre, considerable advance notice will be required.
The longer that completion of the project is delayed the more expensive it will become. As delay continues, there are rising costs of all kinds.
It is in a way a rather depressing time to talk about the completion of the National Theatre, when all theatres in the country—both commercial and subsidised—are facing grossly inflated costs. Theatres are facing, I am thankful to say, the better salaries negotiated by Equity both for rehearsal and playing time, and productions costs have risen by around 40 per cent. in the last four months. The whole trend is towards increasing costs all the time.
Theatres are compensating in a way which is liable to reduce standards. They are concentrating on single-set plays because the alternative is expensive, and

1365
on plays with three or four characters, which is depressing and restricting. It means that large plays, with 45 in the company, cannot be contemplated by the commercial theatre or the subsidised theatre. The production of Shakespeare is becoming prohibitive for all but the Royal Shakespeare Company. I agree with the hon. Member for Canterbury that it is a scandal that in this country, above all others, we have no permanent theatre in London playing Shakespeare. This is urgently needed. This is a difficult time and a difficult background, but I hope that our aspirations to see the National Theatre completed at the earliest possible moment will be carried out.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about the completion date, and that we shall all be able to continue to press for more resources to be made available to support the arts.
9.28p.m.
Mr. Robert Banks: I am encouraged by the wide measure of agreement in the debate, and I hope that reports of this debate will serve as an encouragement to theatre throughout the country and to all those engaged in the National Theatre project. I also hope that it will help to lay the dust of the criticisms recently levelled against the National Theatre. There are a great number of people who are weary of the criticisms that arise whenever a national project reaches fruition. It is extraordinary that so many of our great projects end up with rival factions of people who try to do them down whenever they get the opportunity to do so.
Some people argue over the theatre's design. Surely it is too late to argue on that. Personally I think that the theatre displays a great strength and character, and the interior has a dramatic influence which is right and necessary for such a project. The design makes use of the magnificent position of the theatre and brings a new element of life to a hitherto dreary area of the Thames Embankment. My personal view is somewhat mixed as to the architectural merits of the building from the outside. We must accept that people have different views, but we must also accept that, once the building is a reality, criticism will do nothing but destroy.
1366
It is argued that there are three theatres involved in the scheme which will command the attendance of too great a number of people to make the theatres viable. I do not share that view. It is a ridiculous assumption that in the great City of London there are not sufficient people who will be bothered to go to the quality of theatre we shall wish to see when these three theatres are operating.
The Olivier Theatre is to my mind a very fine theatre. I believe that there we have the potential of the greatest theatre in the world. It is full of innovation and has a stage technique which is unrivalled. The smaller Lyttelton Theatre is interesting because it will provide the London stage with repertory productions. Repertory deserves all the support it can get from London, and it will benefit by coming to London and by being acclaimed for its performances. At the same time we shall see touring companies from the National Theatre going out to all parts of the country to put on productions in our provincial theatres.
I want to make a plea to the Minister to give careful attention to capital projects which provincial theatres may wish to put in hand in the form of restaurants, coffee bars and so on in order to make their theatres more viable. Many are the complaints that people going to the theatre in the country cannot have a meal or partake of any refreshment apart from that offered in a crush bar. The economics of this show that, if it is possible to get in more people spending money and having meals in theatres, the result is not only a benefit to the theatre financially but greatly improved attendances.
Returning to the National Theatre, we hear the argument from many sections that it will involve about 100 people coming from the theatre in the form of technicians and so on working behind the scenes. We are talking about a relatively small number. But why is that a criticism when we are providing job opportunities, and remarkably good ones into the bargain? If the wages offered are higher than those agreed by other theatres—we have heard the controversy about that tonight—it is a matter for the theatres to agree between them.
The building is not yet completed, and delay in a national project of this scale

1367
is harmful not only to the building industry, which is responsible for erecting the building, but starts the building off on the wrong foot. I hope that every conceivable effort will now be made to get the theatre complex completed in the soonest possible time. We know the problems of the building industry, the unemployment in it and the number of craftsmen available. If it is necessary to bring in additional staff to get the building completed as soon as possible, I hope that it will be done.
The financial side is crucially important. The Minister has given an undertaking, for which I am grateful, and we look forward to seeing the hard cash terms when they are announced.
I agree heartily with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) that the National Theatre, the Royal Opera House, the English National Opera and the Royal Shakespeare Company should be lumped together but accounted separately. These are great national projects. I believe that there would be considerable merit in doing this because it would take away the aura of suspicion that provincial theatre has that too much money will be channelled not only into the National Theatre but into the Royal Opera House and the Royal Shakespeare Company as well. This is a genuine anxiety which needs rectifying.
In these times of dire inflation anxiety goes right across the board, not only in the theatre but in every section of the community. The taxpayers, rightly, will want to see value for their money when the sums are announced. But let us look on the positive side to what we are achieving with the National Theatre. I am happy to endorse what has been said already—that we shall have an internationally famous theatre complex which will put London substantially at the head of the league of theatrical centres. We should be rightly proud of having a building which offers that, in addition to the high regard that we all—especially tourists—have today for the theatre in London. We shall be fixing London with an asset which will direct this focus of attention on London as the centre of theatre and the arts.
I am always surprised how every tourist one meets invariably comes round
1368
to looking forward to going to the theatre in London. When the National Theatre is open and under way, I hope that our publicity abroad will draw tourists from all parts of the world to come and see it for themselves. It is essentially important that we create the right aura and technique for the theatre in making it attractive for people to see. In an inflation crisis we must not lose sight of our pursuit of art and excellence and in so doing bring our civilisation closer to the truth that art reveals.
9.36 p.m.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: To the regret of the House, I must admit that I am a creature easily tempted. As the only representative present of what I believe is often thought of as the second oldest profession in the world, may I briefly make one or two comments, as hon. Members clearly feel that I should be taking part in the debate.
I had not intended to speak, for two reasons. The first is simply that there is an excellent dinner awaiting me in exquisite company and the longer we sit here the more quickly it goes to ruin. The second reason is that I normally prefer to speak only in my party's praises and I must admit to a certain lack of happiness in these times of financial stringency about the apparent prospects of the arts under the present Labour Government's attitude towards them.
I share the general feeling abroad in the House tonight that there are grave dangers, not only for this specific project, such as certain curtailments, perhaps, in the National Theatre project, but for the general funding of the arts in the country today. We fund them so miserably as it is that any diminution of that funding, any dampening down, would be desperately depressing.
I urge my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to consider the possibility of raising money for the arts—the idea has been raised before and I am a strong supporter of it—in these times of national stringency, by requiring local authorities to impose a mandatory rate for art support purposes. If my memory serves me aright, I think that a 2p rate throughout the country would realise an amount in the neighbourhood of £50 million. That would lead roughly to an immediate doubling of the funding available for art purposes throughout the country.

1369
I seriously urge my hon. Friend to consider the suggestion. I do not see any other way of getting arts activities of all sorts working, not only in the Metropolis, where it is easier because there is a larger audience demanding them, but in all the regions. Had the dice fallen another way and had the job been mine, I should have been eager to examine and, I hope, to carry into practice the requirement for a mandatory funding of the arts by a local authority rate. I am profoundly worried—as I think the rest of the House is—by the comments of the Lord President the other night. I did not hear the speech—
Mr. Cormack: The hon. Member was lucky.
Mr. Faulds—because the Lord President is not an orator to whose effusions I rush to listen. But I read the speech and if what HANSARD reported is true—I have no reason to doubt that it is—I think my hon. Friend on the Front Bench will have to flex considerably more political muscle than he has done so far in matters of funding the arts. I wish him well if he is to manage to indulge in this exercise because, as other hon. Members have said tonight, in the period we shall have to go through in the next few years—I do not think we shall get out of this economic crisis quite as easily and as quickly as some of us hope—we shall experience some dismal dark passages. We need the sustenance of the arts and a much more general spread of that sustenance throughout the country.
The provision of arts factilities, the enjoyment of the arts, the enormous enrichment and enhancement they bring to life—the tragedy is that far too many of our people have never sniffed these wonders. They have never sensed the riches available. To do that job properly we have to consider not diminishing or keeping static the amounts of money available to the arts but enormously increasing them. I hope that my hon. Friend flexes that political muscle and achieves this exercise, because the folk of the country badly need it.
9.42 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: With the permission of the House, I shall speak again in reply to what has been a useful, most informative and good
1370
humoured debate. That latter characteristic is what saved the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). He is a little sharp occasionally but is saved by his capacity also to make jokes, so that we accept his sharper points since he usually puts the House into a good humour. I know that he has never been able to forget that he spent a few short weeks as Minister responsible for the arts which, I think, sharpens the barb of his asperity. It was only a few short weeks, and the love which he expressed for the position was possibly a little unrequited, which makes it more difficult for him to recognise that we are now on different sides of the House.
The hon. Gentleman made one or two specific points with which I shall endeavour to deal. First, I am particularly fortunate as Minister responsible for the arts to have civilised Treasury colleagues. I recall seeing the Paymaster-General more than once in a theatre, and once in an opera house. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are all men who from time to time enjoy the arts and go to the theatre. Therefore, I am fortunate because I know that when I talk to them about my problems they will do their best to assist me to get over those difficulties.
I must be careful how I speak. I am just this side of a Budget and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be talking to us before long. As he has been nudged one way already it would ill become me to nudge him the other way tonight, but I have confidence that the interest and concern for the arts in general and for the National Theatre in particular which has been expressed on both sides of the House is felt very strongly throughout the Government, particularly in some quarters where it counts.
I am not by any means pessimistic, but it would be wrong for me to suggest to the House that there is any possibility of lifting the arts out of the general economy of the country and saying "They are special, they do not count. The arts are different and can be regarded in a different form from anything else". The impracticability of that view can be demonstrated. The arts spread over; sport is adjacent. Where do the arts finish and the crafts start?

1371
It is very difficult to pick any particular recipient of State support and say that it is to be excluded from the general restrictions. Under the impetus of a Labour Government, in 10 years the support for the arts went up from a miserable £2 million, as it was under the Conservative Government in 1963, to a figure now approaching £20 million.
Mr. Cormack: Chicken feed.
Mr. Jenkins: Chicken feed certainly, but 10 times the sort of chicken feed it was 10 years ago when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power.
The record of Labour Governments is, therefore, not only the appointment of a Minister responsible for the arts who has the job of fighting for the arts within the Government. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. When the hon. Member for Chelmsford, who speaks for the Opposition Front Bench, succeeded to the position of Minister for the arts, the 10 per cent. increase which had been made over several years was cut to 3 per cent. He did nothing whatever about that cut. He tolerated the consequences of the policies of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the demon Barber as he was called in those days. He did nothing whatever about it. The hon. Gentleman was a total loss in the 10 weeks he spent as Minister for the arts.
Mr. Cormack: I do not think that competition in parsimony will get us anywhere. If the hon. Gentleman can suggest that £20 million is a sum to be proud of when we have just spent almost half the cost of the National Theatre on our car park, he ought to think again.
Mr. Jenkins: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the fact that we are not spending enough on the arts. I am not suggesting for one moment that we shall not spend a great deal more. I am saying that our achievement during the last 10 years has been considerable. The whole of the money is not contained in the amount of money which the Government fund to the Arts Council. Expenditure on the arts in my Department, for example, amounts to £50 million. Local authorities spend at least the same spread over the country. So the idea that we are an extremely backward coun-
1372
try in support for the arts is true, but not by any means as true as it was.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am drawn to my feet by the partial account which the hon. Gentleman has given of the financing of the arts. The facts are that under the last Conservative Government, until the emergency measures of last November, there was an increase in the arts budget of 10 per cent. in real terms per year. It was the highest sustained increase in the history of the Department. Even when the emergency measures were entered into, there was no absolute cut in the arts budget. What there was was a cut in the rate of increase. It still went up by 3 per cent. We are asking the hon. Gentleman to do the same or better, and if he can do that we shall be the first to congratulate him. But his job is to get that increase and not put the Treasury argument by saying that if we get this for the arts, people will ask it for sports and so on. That is an argument for the Treasury, not an argument for the hon. Gentleman. Let him speak up for the arts.
Mr. Jenkins: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to go on like that, but when he inherited—the 10 per cent. per annum rate of increase had been going on for many years—a cut in the rate of growth from 10 per cent. to 3 per cent. he did nothing whatever about it.
As the hon. Gentleman seems to imagine that I am always opposing his noble Friend Lord Eccles, I should like to pay a tribute to Lord Eccles. Although I had criticism of Lord Eccles—as did many of us—about some of his actions as Minister responsible for the arts, notably the museum charges, it is true that for many years the Conservative Party maintained the 10 per cent. real increase instituted under the Labour Government of 1964–70 until the hon. Gentleman appeared on the scene.
Let me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) that I shall certainly do my best, but whether I am capable of deploying the amount of political muscle that he might deploy remains to be seen. I myself feel that these things are probably best dealt with by discussion with one's colleagues in the Government, and I think we shall suceed in putting the case of the arts firmly, clearly and, I trust, successfully.

1373
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), who came to see me just now to say that she had to go, had a considerable point—which other Members have mentioned—about the problem of the theatre in the regions. She asked whether there would be some interchange between the National Theatre and theatres outside London. I think that that will be the case and that the Cottesloe Theatre will be used in some degree for this purpose.
While I am on this subject, I want to emphasise that there is no intention to put the theatre into mothballs. It is the full intention of the Government—I am satisfied that the same goes for the Arts Council and the theatre authorities themselves—that the theatres shall be put into full use and maintained in full use.
The hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) made a good point when he suggested that regional theatres sometimes lacked proper facilities which people now expect. People have the idea that it ought now to be possible to get a meal and have a drink in comfort, and this is not always the case in regional theatres. The fact that we are concentrating tonight upon the National Theatre does not mean that it will be funded at the expense of the regional theatre.
I have been to the Marlowe Theatre more than once. It does not have every conceivable facility which one might wish for, but nevertheless some very good work is done there. This illustrates the point I made earlier that, while all of us want to see these superb facilities which the National Theatre is going to bring to us, it is still possible to work elsewhere with less than those facilities.
Sir A. Meyer: While the hon. Gentleman is on that point, I should like to ask him a related question, which will also be of interest to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). Can he give some assurance that, so far as lies in his power, the firm which is responsible for the catering at the Royal Festival Hall will not be allowed anywhere near the National Theatre?
Mr. Jenkins: There is perhaps some misunderstanding about the functions of the Department responsible for the arts. It is not its job to look after who does the catering. Indeed, if intervention to
1374
such a degree were to take place it would, quite properly, be resented, just as it would be resented if anyone tried to suggest what production should take place in any particular theatre.
Several hon. Members have asked why it is not possible for the Government to quote now the final cost of the project in an exact form. The reason is that the additional cost will be incurred in completing the project over the next 18 months or so. Therefore, one cannot forecast exactly what will happen.
I can, however, say something that I hope will be of some comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody), for whose contribution I was most grateful. It is hoped that the main contractors will be out of the building in the early part of the New Year. It is, therefore, my personal expectation—I make clear that it is my personal expectation—that the theatre will become available for use in a different way from what was envisaged.
Hon. Members will recall that the proposal was that Her Majesty the Queen should open the building and that, since everything would not be ready, there would be a sort of interregnum after which productions would take place. I understand that the opposite is now proposed. The idea is that the theatre shall come into use and that the official opening shall indeed follow a period in which the theatre has been brought into use. This is not unusual.
Mrs. Dunwoody: The question is not simply when the official opening will be held. If the company has been built up with a specific timetable, and if the whole of its forward planning has been based on a particular opening date, either from the point of view of contracts or from that of people physically employed in the theatre, my hon. Friend will understand that it is tremendously important that there should be a definite date. It does not matter if that date is two years ahead, though God forfend that it should be so, but it must be a definite date.
Mr. Jenkins: I take the point. I think that the director of the theatre is fully informed of the facts and recognises the need for a definite date. But it is possible to recruit a company over a period. The

1375
company will begin to be recruited over a period of time and I think we shall have a situation which is not what we would have desired. We wanted the theatre opened in April, but I think the theatre will become available in the very near future. I am sorry that it is not possible for me to give a firm date now.
Mr. Freud: Will the Minister bear in mind that the National Theatre has already had six definite dates? I should have thought that the important thing was to go ahead without a definite date.
Mr. Jenkins: This is what I am suggesting will happen.
The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) raised the question of comparative costs. The cost of the Sydney Opera House was £57 million, a substantially greater cost than the one we are contemplating. The cost of a 400,000 ton oil tanker is £33 million, the cost of a single Boeing aircraft is almost the same as the cost of the National Theatre—between £11 million and £13 million.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) is right to say that we are making a tremendous fuss about what is relatively not such a huge amount, with a special Act of Parliament and so on. All the apparatus with which we surround the expenditure of this relatively small sum make it seem substantially more than it is.
The hon. Member for Canterbury also touched on the question of the support for the arts in other countries. He is quite right in saying that the state of opera in Vienna is of great significance and great excellence. But Vienna is not entirely without problems. Visits have been made to our office in London by officials from Vienna with complaints at their having to support national collections as great as, or greater than, those in London on an annual budget of £2 million, compared with the £10 million which we devote to that purpose, and with a central office staff of three people. They came to visit us to obtain advice on how they might tackle their problems.
I think, therefore, that we are now beginning to realise the importance of the arts and of getting to a position in which we can perhaps teach others some things about them from time to time.
Mr. Crouch: The point that I was making was not so much the maintenance of opera in Vienna—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Ordered,
That the National Theatre Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour—[Mr. Dormand]
Question again proposed,That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr. Crouch: The point that I was making was not so much the maintenance of opera in Vienna as the fact that the Austrians initiated a programme to rebuild the great opera house in Vienna at a time when their country had been devastated by war and yet they gave it top priority.
Mr. Jenkins: I took the point, but it gave me the opportunity of getting in the point that I wanted to make.
I am grateful for what was said by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). I should like to reciprocate by agreeing about the great importance of the contribution by Oliver Lyttelton to the National Theatre project which is recognised by naming one of the auditoria after him. I agree with the hon. Gentleman regarding the National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company. There is no intention of bringing about a merger between the two. I would be wholly opposed to any such proposal. I am unable to agree with the hon. Member who suggested that.
My right hon. Friend the Members for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) made a number of points with which I am in considerable agreement. After spending a lifetime squeezing wages out of reluctant employers on behalf of actors, I think that I shall find my Treasury colleagues a relative pushover. I hope that we shall have no difficulty in getting sufficient money to enable us to proceed with matters within the context of the general economic situation from which none of us can escape.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) is a little confused about the functions of the Minister responsible for the arts. I think that he was trying to take me into a more detailed area of opinion than it would be proper for me

1377
to go. I cannot and should not seek to usurp the functions of the Arts Council, still less those of the National Theatre Board. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said. However, I hope that he will forgive me if I refrain from entering into any detailed opinion on the points that he made. They will be recorded in HANSARD and no doubt note will be taken of them by the people who are directly concerned.
I was particularly interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe refer to the remarkable work done by the Victoria Theatre in Stoke. It is a good example of what can be done on a fairly small budget outside London. It is fair to point out that the seat price in Stoke receives from the Arts Council about the same support per box office pound, though on a smaller level, as the National Theatre.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend also pay tribute to the theatre in Crewe, not just in Stoke?
Mr. Jenkins: Indeed. "Shelton" was produced originally in Stoke and then in Crewe. That is why I mentioned Stoke first. I agree that Crewe is no less important than Stoke. From my hon. Friend's point of view it is no doubt more important.
The suggestion that the National Theatre will drain other theatres of their manpower has been somewhat exaggerated. I do not think we need bother too much about that. There is a problem in that at present there is a particular shortage of stage technicians. The National Theatre is coming to fruition when there are certain difficulties in this area. Peter Hall has replied in some detail to this criticism, and it is somewhat exaggerated.
I have indicated to the House that the Government are fully aware of the problem of running costs and that we have no intention of allowing this great new project to run down for lack of ability to maintain itself. The Arts Council is the body which will determine this matter. Personally I am not much taken with the idea of a separate Vote for the large companies. A separation which might be looked at again is the separation between capital expenditure, on the one hand, and production expenditure on the other. That might be a very fruitful examination. It is particularly noteworthy
1378
in the National Theatre that much of the expenditure is continuing expenditure consequent on the building, quite separate from the question of expenditure relating to the production. Therefore, that sort of separation would be a more fruitful area for examination and consideration than would be an attempt to set up a separate group, although that in itself I would not exclude from examination.
A number of other points were made but some of them were not particularly relevant to the National Theatre. I think that at this time of night the House would thank me if I drew my speech to a close.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Two very important questions have not been answered. One was about the future of the Old Vic, which is intimately connected with the National Theatre. The other was about the future of the Young Vic. We should all be grateful if the Minister gave us briefly his views on these two vitally important questions.
Mr. Jenkins: It was my intention to do so. I was about to conclude by referring to those two points and a third point that was raised about the equipment of the National Theatre.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: We should be grateful for that information too.
Mr. Jenkins: The question of the equipment is unlikely to arise in the figures given. The total figures include the equipment. The figures placed before the House are total, complete and full. Therefore, it is unlikely that we shall have to go beyond that level at all.
There has been no decision about the Old Vic. The Young Vic might possibly use it, but nothing has been finally settled and this matter is still under consideration. Therefore, this means in turn that the Young Vic too is unsettled. If the Young Vic went into the Old Vic, that would solve two problems. There is some question that this may be the case, but it has not been decided upon. It is still under active discussion.
Mr. Strauss: May I ask a question before the decision is made? Once a decision is made it is no good trying to bring persuasion to bear. There have been arguments about the Old Vic. I am particularly interested in it. It is in

1379
my constituency and I never miss some performance there. I am anxious that my hon. Friend the Minister should keep an open mind in the controversy about whether the Old Vic should continue as a theatre, with its old traditions, or be turned into an opera house or a ballet house, with a huge portion taken out of the stalls, which would be deplorable. There is a very strong case for maintaining the Old Vic as a theatre, as it has been for a long time, and possibly making it is a Shakspere theatre, as has been suggested.
Mr. Jenkins: I shall certainly bear in mind those points. I go rather further than that and say that I shall specifically make it my business to look into the matter that my right hon. Friend has suggested to ascertain the position.
The debate has illustrated that there is a very profound interest in the House about the future of the National Theatre. It is quite right that the debate has rather gone beyond consideration of the National Theatre itself. It is possible that this National Theatre may yet prove to be the crown in the British artistic renaissance which it has been suggested may be coming about and that we may be living in our time at the height of it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Dormand.]
Committee tomorrow.

NATIONAL THEATRE [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to remove the limits imposed by the National Theatre Act 1949 on the contributions which may be made under that Act towards the cost of erecting and equipping a national theatre, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the contributions,
1380
towards the cost of erecting and equipping a national theatre, made under the said Act of 1949 out of money so provided.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

MEMBERS' INTERESTS (DECLARATION)
Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the arrangements to be made pursuant to the Resolutions of the House of 22nd May in the last Parliament relative to the declaration of Members' interests and the registration thereof, and, in particular:

(a) what classes of pecuniary interest or other benefit are to be disclosed;

(b) how the register should be compiled and maintained and what arrangements should be made for public access thereto;

(c) how the resolutions relating to declaration and registration should be enforced;

(d) what classes of person (if any) other than Members ought to be required to register;

and to make recommendations upon these and any other matters which are relevant to the implementation of the said Resolutions.
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to report from time to time; and to report from time to time the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them and Memoranda submitted to them.
Ordered,
That the Committee do consist of Fourteen Members. And the Committee was nominated of Mr. Cant, Mr. Nicholas Edwards, Mr. Hall-Davis, Sir Michael Havers, Mr. Sydney Irving, Mr. Colin Jackson, Mr. Simon Mahon, Mr. Angus Maude, Mr. Arthur Palmer. Mr. James Prior, Mr. Nigel Spearing, and Mr. Frederick Willey.
Ordered,
That Five be the Quorum of the Committee.
Ordered,
That the Committee shall report to the House, within the shortest reasonable period, their recommendations, especially with regard to paragraphs (a),(b) and (c).
Ordered,
That the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Members' Interests (Declaration) in the last Parliament and reported by them to the House on 29th July be referred to the Committee. [Mr. Walter Harrison.]

ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dormand.]

NATIONAL SAVINGS STAMP
10.10 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I am glad to have this opportunity of firing the opening shot in what I assure the Minister and his advisers will be a long battle. I hope that he will accept from me that blunt speaking means no discourtesy to him. I am determined to get the decision to phase out the national savings stamp reversed. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessors twice had to reprieve the sixpence that they tried to get rid of.
The national savings stamp goes back to the First World War, and it provides a most valuable weapon in the battle we are all trying to fight. The DNS annual reports show that the sale of stamps in 1971 was £83 million. That had risen by 1974 to £118 million. The management expenses rose over that same period from £4·85 million to £8·97 million. It is fair to say that these stamps represent interest-free borrowing by the Government from the public. It is also right to say that the Government are paying at the moment between 11 and 11½ per cent. for short-term borrowing. I make 11 per cent. on £53 million about £5·8 million. That is left in the hands of the public. It is the interest the Government does not have to meet because stamps are interest-free, and this must be deducted from the management expenses in order to arrive at the net cost of the stamp scheme to the Government, which is about £3 million a year. If a stamp had been introduced to pay for television licences its cost would have to be taken into account in calculating what the Government might possibly pay.
The first hint that the stamp might go was, clearly, not a ministerial hint. It came from the recesses of the Treasury, and it came at the time the Page Report was published. I took a deputation to see the then Minister of State, and at that stage the petition had 120,000 signatures, and the number has since risen to nearly
1382
190,000. I attacked the decision then. I thought it was a particularly foolish one. I now go on to attack the decision that the present Government have taken. I do not regard this as a political issue because Ministers of both major parties have fallen for the Treasury arguments.
The Paymaster-General, in a letter on 31st October to Mrs. Perkins, talks about the importance attached to the social practice, and says that the decision to abolish the stamp was not based solely on economic considerations. He said:
"I must emphasise that my primary consideration was the fact that the stamp is a bad buy for the saver; it is not, and cannot practicably be, a security which carries interest and thus give a reward to the saver for deferring consumption."
But it was never meant to be, and anyone connected with savings knows that. It is meant to be the first step on the road to saving, and anyone who has ever collected door to door as I have—perhaps the Minister has not had the chance or the honour—will know that one never tries to kid people that by buying national savings stamps they will earn any interest. I believe that the right job for the national savings movement is to encourage purchase of security, and to get people along the proper road towards national savings.
I wish to quote some distinguished people who go along with the idea that the national savings stamp is extremely important. One of the most important people that I can quote is Mr. George Woodcock, who is not unknown to the Paymaster-General. Mr. Woodcock said at a conference of the National Savings Committee:
"And then in terms of our securities we have everything from the stamp, which has been much criticised, but which is essential to us; it is one of our unique responsibilities and our unique functions".
He repeats:
"It is an essential part of us. It enables us to offer the small saver everything from the humble stamp to Save-As-You-Earn."
What does the Paymaster-General have to say about all this? He made an interesting, though long, speech in Glasgow. I think that he had to rewrite it in view of the leak that had taken place. I shall quote one or two extracts from the speech to show the fallacy of the arguments that were being adduced for him.

1383
The right hon. Gentleman said that the stamp "is expensive to the Government". I can show that it is not expensive to the Government and that the cost is probably less than the cost of the proposed television stamp. He said that the stamp made a negligible contribution to Government finances. It was never intended primarily to finance the Government. The stamp leads into savings for those who would not otherwise acquire the habit.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the stamp was "bad for the saver", "insecure" and paid no interest. This ignores the advantages of familiarity, simplicity and convenience. The stamp can be readily encashed, and it provides convertibility to a permanent form of saving and leads to the saving habit.
As a member of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trustee Savings Bank movement I can say that the TSB regards the savings stamp as very important. As regards the case for its abolition, the Government have been criticised for giving an inadequate return on savings securities in view of the rate of inflation. In the case of the stamp the return is negative. This criticism, however, cannot be directed at the stamp, as it is meant for short-term saving, to help people with budgeting.
It is said that the national savings movement has been divided on the need for the stamp. Those parts of the movement which use the stamp arc convinced that it is vitally needed. In schools, for instance, the alternative would be school banks, which are not particularly feasible for young children but it is essential that they should be able to form the savings habit right from the start. Even in industry the stamp is widely used and its abolition would reduce saving among people employed in industry.
A recommendation of the NSC in 1973 was that stamps should be retained but reviewed in two years' time. The National Savings Committee is unanimous in recommending retention of the stamp. I believe that if the stamp goes the national savings movement will collapse, and the Government and their officials would be responsible for this. It is no use praying in aid the situation in other countries because no other country has a voluntary movement.
1384
If the stamp were abolished, what would be the alternative? People would have to use the National Savings Bank or the Trustee Savings Bank. I wonder whether the Paymaster-General or any of his officials have gone to a post office or trustee savings bank to deposit savings. It is not possible to go to a TSB on a Saturday, and if some unions get their way post office counters will also be closed on Saturdays.
In many cases if the stamp were abolished there would be no alternative for people, such as in those areas where collections of savings are made week after week. It seems that no proper thought is being given to this desperately important matter.
Let me quote to the House the words of Sir Robert Bellinger, who must be a reasonable man or he would not have been appointed Chairman of the National Savings Committee. He is reported in the Sunday Telegraph of 27th October as saying:
"I am disappointed. While we are waiting for the Budget and the Prime Minister is calling for national unity in time of crisis, it is unfortunate that this should be announced at this time. The 10p stamp is the greatest rise of savings activity in this country."
I believe that the Government have gone into this matter on bad advice. I hope that they will be big enough to recognise that they have made a mistake. They cannot afford to throw aside the 50 years or so of hard work that has gone into this movement. There is a wealth of talent that is about to be lost. There is a desperate need to encourage thrift.
One of the practices we are losing is the habit of saving. This has not been helped by the recent disappearance from most post offices of the national savings stamp caused by the Stationery Office strike. As a result, there have been resignations from the savings movement.
I was grateful to the Paymaster-General for his Written Answer to me on this topic on 6th November. He said:
"Provided that the present output of national savings stamps is maintained, supplies should be available at all post offices by the end of November."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November 1974; Vol. 880, c. 159.]
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing the record to be set right and for encouraging people to believe that they can go back to the post office and obtain

1385
these stamps. It seems foolish that the movement, which exists only to try to encourage the savings habit, should suddenly be told, virtually at no notice, that it has two years to try to find another form of activity. I do not believe that it will be possible for this to be done.
I have certain links with the savings movement having run a group, having for some years been on the board of the largest trustee savings bank, and having also been a member of the Parliamentary Committee. Therefore, I know the desperate importance of trying to encourage people to start on the road to thrift. Nobody has ever said that the savings stamp by itself is the right form of saving, but it must be looked at as a lead-in. An alternative does not exist.
If the Paymaster-General wants to do something constructive—and I am sure he does—he must impress on his colleagues in the Department of Trade that the National Savings Bank should take 10p deposits rather than a 25p minimum. That would be some recognition of a desire to help the small saver. At the moment I see no evidence that anybody will take this attitude. I am distinctly worried about the situation. There is a vital need to encourage voluntary effort.
There are so many people who are anxious about this matter that it should be said that if the Minister is unable to give a helpful answer tonight—and I warn him that this is only battle No. 1—he will find himself defending the Government's action during Consolidation Fund debates, and during debates at Christmas and other Adjournment debates. Life will be easier for him if he is realistic now and accepts, with his usual smile and courtesy, that perhaps there has been a mistake and that the stamp should not be phased out.
If the right hon. Gentleman does not make a gesture of that kind, he will find that the names on the early-day motion—an all-party motion—will grow in number. I have not yet even tried to persuade people to sign it, and I believe that the numbers will be embarrassingly large for the right hon. Gentleman. The matter will be brought up on business questions on a Thursday and the Leader of the House will no doubt say that time may not be found "next week". But the Paymaster-General knows that when there
1386
is a motion containing 100 or so signatures, the right hon. Gentleman the Patronage Secretary gets a little worried and starts to say "Will you not be a little more helpful?"—and all the minions in the Treasury will not overcome the Patronage Secretary when he is in that mood.
Knowing the Paymaster-General, I cannot believe that he will remain adamant. I urge him to have a second thought on the subject and, when he has had it, to have a third one. If he really has at heart the interests of the economy and those of small people and he wants to encourage the habit of thrift, which is to be treasured in this country, he is going about it in the wrong way. I hope that he will change his mind.
10.25 p.m.
The Paymaster-General (Mr. Edmund Dell): I am sure that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) wishes this debate to be conducted on the merits of the question rather than in terms of the opportunities which hon. Members have to exercise pressure on the Government. We are all aware of those opportunities but let us tonight at any rate discuss the merits of the question with which we are dealing.
The hon. Gentleman has no justification for suggesting that the Government are not interested in small savers. He will know from what the Government have done in respect of the future of the trustee savings banks and in introducing index-linked bonds for small savers that we have given specific evidence of our interest in small savers—evidence which his right hon. and hon. Friends did not give in the 12 months that they had the Page Report in their hands.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that at the Glasgow assembly I made this announcement, and he quoted from the speech that I made there. I made the announcement at the Glasgow assembly of the Scottish movement because I had been told that that movement found itself especially dependent on the stamp. Let me say here and now, having listened to the debate which followed my announcement, how encouraged I was at the response the announcement had at the Glasgow assembly. The debate was extremely

1387
constructive. Again and again speakers said "Very well. Here is a decision. We may not like it, but that is what has been decided. What we will now do is exploit the new opportunities for saving opening up in its place." No one said what the hon. Gentleman said tonight, that the end of the stamp was the end of the movement. I am sure that everyone there would have denied it emphatically if that had been suggested.
The decision has its origin in the report of the Page Committee, which made a recommendation. I should like to go through the reasons given by the Page Committee for its recommendation and to make some comment about them.
The Page Committee's first reason was that the stamp was irrelevant to State finance. I do not see that anyone can deny that. There is no question about it. The hon. Gentleman said that it was a lead-in to saving. That was the original intention in introducing the stamp. But there is little evidence that it is a lead-in to saving. The figures last year were £119 million in respect of purchases and £115 million in respect to sales. That is not a lead-in to saving, and it seems a little out of date to imagine that in this day and age thrift will be encouraged by exchanging a 10p coin for a 10p stamp which does not carry any interest.
If we want to encourage thrift among young people, which is an important objective, the sensible course of action is to introduce, as is increasingly being done, banking schemes of one kind or another.
The Page Committee's second reason was the high administrative costs. The hon. Member for Hampstead said that in calculating the cost of the stamp we should consider the fact that the Government paid no interest on it. I take no pride in the fact that this is a form of saving on which the Government pay no interest. Nevertheless the cost is high. But this is not an overwhelmingly important question. Given the scale of Government expenditure, it is not the most important reason why the decision was taken. But this is a high-cost activity. I gave the figures of purchases and sales. They mean a net gain of about £4 million. The
1388
administrative cost during the same period was £9 million. If we take into consideration the 7 per cent. of the sales that are converted into more permanent securities, we have £12 million worth of permanent savings which cost £9 million to achieve. That is a high administrative cost.
The Page Report described the stamp not as a savings medium but as a short-term budgetary device. That, indeed, is what it is. A number of people, particularly the elderly, still buy stamps and use them for various payments, especially for television licences. I suggest that savings banks are better and safer. The hon. Gentleman tells me that he is on the board of a trustee savings bank. I would have thought that it was much better to encourage people to put their savings in banks. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the National Savings Bank will take small sums. That is a very much better and safer way of saving.
We acknowledge that there are people who buy stamps and use them for various payments such as TV licences. That is why we are introducing a television scheme. We shall not phase out the national savings stamp until the TV scheme is introduced.
Education is one of the most important aspects of the national savings movement, and one which we hope will be developed in the future even more than in the past. I cannot imagine how anyone can advocate the savings stamp as the best way of teaching people how to save. School banking schemes are being developed in more and more schools. That is the way to teach modern money management.
I hope that as a result of the announcement that I have made the change-over, which I believe has not been happening rapidly enough, will move ahead very fast. I think I can say with some security that many educationists within the national savings movement are glad that the savings stamp is being phased out so as to encourage movement in another direction.
Another point which the Page Committee made was the high security risk of the stamp. It can be lost, damaged, burned or stolen. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen tonight's

1389
Evening News. Coincidentally for his Adjournment debate it carries the headline:
"Thieves snatch cripple's £160 savings."
Where were those savings? They were in stamps. There was £160 worth of savings in stamps. They were stolen and they did not carry any interest. Those savings would have been very much securer in the National Savings Bank. They would have been totally secure there even if the book had been stolen.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I have not seen the headline to which the Minister refers, but how could a cripple get to the National Savings Bank to deposit his money?
Mr. Dell: The cripple's wife could get to the bank to deposit the money. How would a cripple cash an amount of that kind without going to the post office or getting somebody to do it for him? The headline to which I have referred gives an example of the sort of insecurity which sales of the stamp to old people involve.
I know a lot of people are afraid that because the stamp is being phased out the stamps that they have in their possession may not be redeemed after a certain date. That is not so. The Government undertake that the stamps will be redeemed indefinitely. The outstanding stamps are about £50 million. On that amount we pay no interest. That is not a point on which I take any pride. I do not regard it as advantageous to the Government that such a situation does not give rise to any cost to the Government. Of course, no one knows how much of the £50 million actually exists. No one knows how much of it has been lost, or how much of it would be redeemed if people wished to redeem it. There is £50 million on which the Government pay no interest. We are criticised enough for the fact that there is £6 million worth of very old certificates at low rates of interest still outstanding.
In short, the stamp is wrong for the saver. Other schemes can take over, such as schemes based on the National Savings Bank or the Trustee Savings Banks. This was very well illustrated by a number of speeches at the Glasgow assembly.
The reason for a period for phasing out is precisely to give the movement in
1390
England and Wales and Scotland an opportunity, in consultation with the Government, to find the best ways of replacing the rôle which the stamp now fills. I want to make it clear that the national savings movement is by no means unanimous in the view that the stamp should be retained. There was a working party of regional chairmen of the movement in England and Wales, chaired by Mr. John Anstey, which reported in September 1973 to the National Savings Committee. It said about the stamp:
"Having paid due regard to all the factors involved we are of the opinion that to meet the conditions of the 1970s stamp instalment saving should no longer have a place in National Savings and we, therefore, Recommend that:

i. the National savings stamp shall be withdrawn after a period of at least two years' notice;

ii. during that period, as a matter of high priority, the Voluntary movement shall seek alternative schemes for the small saver which would progressively replace the Stamp".

In other words, in the view of this distinguished group of members of the national savings movement there are alternative schemes available to replace the stamp.
It continued:

"iii. no new schemes using the National Savings Stamp shall be set up in any section of the Movement;

iv. there is a strong case for the Post Office to be requested to introduce its own special stamp for instalment saving for a Television licence."

We are also doing that.
That recommendation was rejected by the full committee of the Natioal Savings Committee. It let the Treasury know why. It rejected it because it said that it would be divisive and injurious to the voluntary movement at a time when it was facing uncertainty and criticism. It is now not facing uncertainty, because the Government have made it clear that they wish the movement to continue and will enter into discussion with the movement as to the best ways in which it can do so. The committee continued:
"The committee does not regard its future as dependent upon the Stamp"—
which, again, is directly contrary to the views of the hon. Gentleman, who

1391
appears to think that the movement will collapse without the stamps—
"but agrees that steps must be taken forthwith to reduce its dependence upon this facility. Accordingly it is proposed in respect of Education and Industry that no new Stamp Group be established and for the next two years priority be given to transferring Stamp Schemes into bank and other schemes."
That is the view the National Savings Committee held in September 1973, at a time which it says was one of uncertainty. Uncertainty is ended now. The committee can go ahead and develop the many alternative routes for increasing saving.
Hon. Members have also received a circular from the committee in which it refers to the decision I announced. It said:
"The National Savings Committee for England and Wales, whilst deeply regretting the decision"—
I did not know the committee had yet declared itself in that sense—
"will now intensify its efforts to encourage the public to utilise other National Savings facilities."
That is the right attitude..
Here we come to the question the hon. Gentleman raised about the future of the movement and whether it would collapse.
1392
I think that the movement is in more danger if it follows the hon. Gentleman's lead and spends the next two years or more fighting the decision. If the movement wishes to prove that the Page Committee was wrong—as I believe it was, because I believe that it has a future in the education and industrial sectors in particular—it must accept this decision and work from it to develop the many opportunities available to it to encourage savings. In that way it can make a valuable contribution to the encouragement of savings among young people and in industry. That is the way to justify the Government's decision not to abolish the movement. But if the movement follows the hon. Gentleman's course it will be ill-advised.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: No one is following my course. I am speaking for 190,000 people who asked me to raise the subject. That is very different from following my course.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Cattle Slaughtering
  Cattle Slaughtering
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Beef Imports (Ireland)
  Beef Imports (Ireland)
  Beef Production
  Beef Production
  Food Costs
  Food Costs
  Deficiency Payments
  Deficiency Payments
  Live Animals (Export for Slaughter)
  Live Animals (Export for Slaughter)
  Food Production
  Food Production
  Horticulture (Oil Supply)
  Horticulture (Oil Supply)
  Sugar Refining
  Sugar Refining
  Hill Livestock Farmers
  Hill Livestock Farmers
  Horticulture (Glasshouse Sector)
  Horticulture (Glasshouse Sector)
  Calf Subsidy Scheme
  Calf Subsidy Scheme
  Beef Prices
  Beef Prices
  Cattle Imports
  Cattle Imports
  Eggs (French Trade)
  Eggs (French Trade)
  Fishing Vessels (Subsidy)
  Fishing Vessels (Subsidy)
  Cheese (Stilton)
  Cheese (Stilton)
  Milk Producers
  Milk Producers
  Beef (Pensioners)
  Beef (Pensioners)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax (Overtime)
  Income Tax (Overtime)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  War Widows' Pensions
  War Widows' Pensions
  Estate Duty (Terrorism Victims)
  Estate Duty (Terrorism Victims)
  Members of Parliament
  Members of Parliament
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Chilean Debt
  Chilean Debt
  Scotland (Balance of Payments)
  Scotland (Balance of Payments)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Departmental Correspondence
  Departmental Correspondence
  Stanmore Hall, Middlesex
  Stanmore Hall, Middlesex
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Schoolchildren (Islandmagee)
  Schoolchildren (Islandmagee)
  Dunloy, Co. Antrim (Flooding)
  Dunloy, Co. Antrim (Flooding)
  Abattoirs
  Abattoirs
  School Holidays (Recreation Facilities)
  School Holidays (Recreation Facilities)
  Murder
  Murder
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Roads and Transportation (Belfast)
  Roads and Transportation (Belfast)
TRADE
  Deficit (European Economic Community)
  Deficit (European Economic Community)
  Coastguard Flag
  Coastguard Flag
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Beef
  Beef
  Fireworks
  Fireworks
  Primary Batteries
  Primary Batteries
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Norwegian Waters (Fishing Limits)
  Norwegian Waters (Fishing Limits)
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  AUSTRALIA
  AUSTRALIA
  SOCIAL SERVICE STATISTICS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  SOCIAL SERVICE STATISTICS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  DEVOLUTION
  DEVOLUTION
  COMMONWEALTH
  COMMONWEALTH
  SOCIAL CONTRACT
  SOCIAL CONTRACT
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
  DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
  ANIMAL WELFARE
  ANIMAL WELFARE
  MRS. HALLS
  MRS. HALLS
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Government Announcements (Broadcasting)
  Government Announcements (Broadcasting)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Comprehensive Reorganisation
  Comprehensive Reorganisation
  School Building Programmes
  School Building Programmes
  Union of Women Teachers
  Union of Women Teachers
  Brain-Damaged Children
  Brain-Damaged Children
EMPLOYMENT
  Glenburn Engineering (Factory Closures)
  Glenburn Engineering (Factory Closures)
  Airline Pilots' Pay Agreement
  Airline Pilots' Pay Agreement
  Wage Settlements
  Wage Settlements
  Holiday and Travel Trade
  Holiday and Travel Trade
ENERGY
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
INDUSTRY
  Aircraft Industry (Wales)
  Aircraft Industry (Wales)
  Government Aid
  Government Aid
  Court Line
  Court Line
  Hovercraft
  Hovercraft
  Boat Building (Hampshire)
  Boat Building (Hampshire)
  Mars Company
  Mars Company
  Nationalised Industries (Capital Expenditure)
  Nationalised Industries (Capital Expenditure)
  Newspapers (Scotland)
  Newspapers (Scotland)
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
SCOTLAND
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Local Government
  Local Government
  Houghton Committee
  Houghton Committee
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Psychiatric Children (Burton)
  Psychiatric Children (Burton)
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Hospital Building Programmes
  Hospital Building Programmes
  Ancillary Professions
  Ancillary Professions
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
WALES
  Housing
  Housing
  Llangollen
  Llangollen
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
ENVIRONMENT
  Allotments
  Allotments
  Housing
  Housing
  Tied Cottages
  Tied Cottages
  Local Government Staff
  Local Government Staff
  Local Government Wages and Salaries
  Local Government Wages and Salaries
  Pudsey-Dishforth Motorway Proposals
  Pudsey-Dishforth Motorway Proposals
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Lorries (Safety Checks)
  Lorries (Safety Checks)
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Central Housing Advisory Committee
  Central Housing Advisory Committee
  Construction Projects
  Construction Projects
  Property Services Agency Projects
  Property Services Agency Projects
  Road Schemes
  Road Schemes
  Houses (Local Authority Purchase)
  Houses (Local Authority Purchase)
  Land Purchasing (Local Authorities)
  Land Purchasing (Local Authorities)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

RACE RELATIONS ACT AND CLUBS
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their intention to introduce a Bill amending the Race Relations Act to prohibit the practice of a colour bar in clubs open to membership by the general public.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): My Lords, the Government are considering what changes should be made to the Race Relations Act to improve its effectiveness and in doing so will take account of the recent decision of the Appellate Committee of this House in the case of a working men's club in Preston.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Was it not the clear intention of Parliament when the Race Relations Bill was before the House that, while clubs with restricted membership should be exempt, in those with a general membership the colour bar should apply? Would it not be possible to introduce a short amending Bill to put this matter right, even if one has to wait until the next Session for a broader amending Bill?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary indicated in a speech to the annual conference of the Race Relations Board on September 13 that he agreed with the Board's criticisms on the weaknesses in the 1968 Act, and that he
580
intended to introduce legislation to strengthen the Act. Given the fact that a number of consultations are required and that there is now this problem which my noble friend has identified, it would be better to deal with all the problems at the same time.
LORD PANNELL: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this matter brooks no delay? In the case referred to we are speaking about a brown Englishman—somebody who has spent all his life here. There is an increasing number of boys and girls in this country who are coloured, and who are as English as anybody in this House. One of the illogical features of colour is that in this case a lower court differed and the Court of Appeal differed, but their Lordships—because of some curious judgment—based upon five Peers, brought another decision to bear, to the great regret of the noble and learned Lord who pronounced the judgment. This is an absolutely ridiculous procedure.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, my right honourable friend certainly takes a serious view of this matter, but there are a number of other questions in this field which are equally important and that is why he prefers to deal with all the problems at the same time.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, does my noble friend intend to introduce a blanket Bill to include all the problems at the same time, and will it include sex discrimination in clubs?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, my noble friend will not have to wait long before she reads the Government's detailed provisions in the field of sex discrimination.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am entirely sympathetic. In view of the fact that a sex discrimination Bill is to be introduced, and that it will have much broader terms than the present Race Relations Act, when a Bill amending that Act is introduced will it include the broader terms of the sex discrimination Bill?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, it is impossible to answer a question in that degree of detail before the consultations, which I indicated are about to take place, have, in fact, taken place.

DISQUALIFIED DRIVERS: INSURANCE COVER
3.4 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Before the Question is answered, may I offer my apologies for having left out the words "and revoked" after "endorsed" in the third line, because that was the intention of the Question.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that insurance cover is being offered by an insurance company to enable defendant drivers who have had their licences endorsed after committing offences to recover sufficient funds to enable them to avoid the consequences by providing cars and drivers for them and for paying costs incurred by them; and whether they will take steps to ensure that the penalties become realistically effective.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS BIRK): My Lords, the amendment which my noble friend has made I have already taken into account. There are several insurance schemes which offer benefits in the event of their members being disqualified from driving. Generally they meet the cost of a chauffeur during business hours for up to twelve months and may also pay legal expenses. They do not pay any fines which the courts may impose. Furthermore, these policies do not and cannot alter the fact that a disqualified motorist must not drive himself. They are merely one of several ways in which he can arrange personal transport.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, will the noble Baroness state how on earth a penalty will be of any use, particularly for a person who has money, if the courts themselves have no right of detention—in very serious cases, in some instances—because of the Road Traffic Act? What on earth is the idea of allowing people to insure themselves against penalties? Will the noble Baroness allow people to insure themselves against imprisonment?
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, on the last part of my noble friend's question, he knows as well as I do that that is quite impossible. Disqualification is not designed to prevent a person from travelling around—it is merely to prevent him from driving. Many disqualified drivers have other members of their families who can drive them—or there are many who can afford to hire chauffeurs. What these schemes do is to offer similar arangements for those without these facilities, and short of stopping everybody who is disqualified from driving from using any transport other than public—and how one would enforce that I am afraid I do not know—I cannot see that one can do anything.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the most innocent of us can have an accident (and I have been lucky enough since the 1920s not to have had a driving accident until the 1970s) and most of us insure ourselves against the possibilities of fire or accident that may even sometimes be caused by negligence? Secondly, is my noble friend aware that a Greek philosopher once said:
"Laws are like spiders' webs: the weak are enmeshed but the strong can break through"?
Thirdly, is she aware that while the rich may drive easily, the insurance companies which provide this cover (and I have their rules here) state that if there is a revocation or too much drink is involved they will not pay for a chauffeur-driven car for that person?
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's three supplementary questions, the answers are yes, yes, yes.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that we on this side of the House are very pleased with the Answer she has given: to prevent from driving a driver who is not fit to drive is the object of this exercise. At the same time may I congratulate the noble Baroness on, I believe, answering her first Question on the transport problem.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, in spite of the reference to the Greek philosopher and the words expressed by the noble Lord opposite, is it not absurd that a court—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I wonder whether that is really in the form of a question? The object of Question Time is to elucidate information from the Government, and, although it is a question, to use the phrase "is it not absurd" is not exactly the form in which to put a Parliamentary question.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, while I appreciate that the Government could not possibly do anything absurd, nevertheless will the noble Baroness consider the question of whether detention should not be one of the penalties that may be imposed in respect, I do not say of all offences, but those offences which are serious? That is the purpose of this Question.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I rather suspected the purpose of my noble friend's Question, but as the purpose goes beyond the scope of the Question I do not feel that I can answer it on this occasion.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that this may be a precedent for a comprehensive extension to the danger area of membership in local government?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that while many of us on this side of the House welcomed her Answer it would be grossly unfair to punish a man twice for the same offence? A commercial traveller or a doctor who are dependent upon a car would be deprived of their livelihood.

EEC: RENEGOTIATION OF TERMS
3.18 p.m.
LORD CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what problems are still outstanding in the renegotiation of the terms of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Economic Community; by what date it is expected that the renegotiations will be completed; how soon after this it is proposed to make a Statement in Parliament; and if at
584
the same time it is intended to issue a factual White Paper.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the report on renegotiation which the noble and learned Lord who occupies the Woolsack gave the House on November 5 during his speech in the debate on the Address. It is the Government's aim to complete renegotiation by next spring. Statements will doubtless be made at intervals on the progress of renegotiation. No final decision has yet been taken regarding the issue of a White Paper on the results of renegotiation, but full information will of course be given to the House at the appropriate time.
LORD CHELWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware how very welcome was the Lord Chancellor's statement that it was hoped to complete the renegotiation by the spring, particularly since spring starts officially on or around March 21? Are the Government fully aware of the great importance of providing the public with the maximum information as soon as possible so that a nationwide debate can take place well before the poll?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said and I hope that spring will be fairly early next year.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a previous Labour Government stipulated five conditions which would justify our entering the Common Market? Have those five conditions been abandoned, and if not will the noble Lord be kind enough to re-state them now?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I hope to be kind at all times to my noble friend. I am not sure whether I can recall the five conditions which he mentions, but I can assure him that they have not been abandoned; indeed, considerable progress has been made on each one of them. One such condition was, of course, renegotiation of the nature of CAP.
Another condition was to create a better arrangement in regard to the Commonwealth and developing nations within the

585
Commonwealth. A further condition was to safeguard the essential sovereignty of this country, and the fourth one was in regard to regional and industrial policy, although not to the Regional Development Fund. If I have left out a fifth condition, I hope my noble friend will allow me to communicate with him personally.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, if these are some of the five conditions stipulated at the time—although my noble friend said he could not recall them, and it is, therefore, somewhat difficult to understand why he was able to talk about something he could not recall—can my noble friend say whether any of those conditions have been the subject of renegotiation in recent times? Is it not the case that the only subjects which have been renegotiated are those of beef and sugar?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, both those points have been the subject of renegotiation, and considerable progress has been made. A good deal needs to be done, especially on beef. With this I would agree. I would add that the budgetary position and our contributory position in regard to the finance of the Common Market is the fifth condition.
LORD WADE: My Lords, may I further press the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, on the timetable? Is it intended by the Government that the Parliamentary procedure leading to a referendum, if there is one, should be completed by the Summer Recess or later? October has been referred to. That seems a rather unrealistic date in comparison with the Summer Recess.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we have said that within 12 months from the General Election of last month—we shall have completed renegotiation hopefully by the early spring—we shall have consulted the people, provided the fullest possible information both to Parliament and the people, and before next October, or by next October, have conducted the consultation which will decide whether or not we stay in.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, if I may be permitted a further question, could my noble friend say whether the
586
matter of having a referendum of the British public is one that has been determined by Brussels? Is there not something in the Treaty of Accession which makes it necessary for one of the members of the Nine to consult Brussels before taking what might be regarded as a fundamental decision?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am not aware of anything in either Treaty to inhibit this country from deciding for itself how it consults its own people on this matter.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he anticipates any development with regard to the Regional Fund? As he knows, there is a country with which he and I are not unacquainted which may be in a more profitable position if the Regional Fund were developed.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for implicitly recognising the distinction between regional industrial policy and the Regional Fund. The Fund does not form part of the renegotiation for obvious procedural and technical reasons. We are willing to take part in further talks in the Community. A good deal of study has been made of this matter. Therefore, I cannot say when information about any decision as to the former structure of this Fund will be available to either House.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.

EDUCATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confer on the local community for the benefit of which an educational foundation was endowed an option to purchase or otherwise acquire land or property disposed of by the governing body of that foundation. My Lords, for the fourth time I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh).
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
3.25 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD rose to move. That the Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie be appointed Deputy Chairman of Committees for this Session. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this appointment, which was first made last Session, carries with it the Chairmanship of the Select Committee on European Communities. As we shall be debating the Special Report of the Committee later this afternoon, I do not propose to say any more than a few words. I have no doubt that noble Lords will be expressing their appreciation to my noble friend Lord Diamond for the work he has undertaken in establishing the Committee, and for getting so much support from the membership of the Committee as a whole. I pay my own tribute to him. If we regret that my noble friend Lord Diamond should now become Chairman of a Royal Commission and therefore can no longer be of service, this is tempered, I hope, by the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, is willing to be appointed Deputy Chairman of Committees. I would urge the House to agree with this Motion.
My Lords, I will not disguise from the House that about half an hour ago I was receiving stern strictures from my noble friend Lady Summerskill about the appointment of women Peers to a certain Committee. My noble friend will appreciate that this Motion is not a result of those strictures, but I hope she will feel that the Motion I am moving this afternoon at least provides for me some saving grace in her estimation. The appointment which I move is not on the basis that it is right and proper that a woman should become Deputy Chairman of Committees; it is because I and those whom I have consulted felt that the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, was the right person to undertake these tasks. She has the character, the drive and enthusiasm to make this important Committee work. I hope the House will agree with the Motion.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
Moved, That the Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie be appointed Deputy Chairman of Committees for this Session.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should not like it to go unsaid from this side that we, too, are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for the splendid job he did. It is sad that as he has now gone to redistribute any of the wealth we may have left after next Tuesday, it is necessary to redistribute his job to my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie. Alas! she will be lost from those on the Front Bench, but I think her appointment will be a gain to the whole House.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with what has been said about the appointment. We on these Benches are extremely sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has gone, but he has taken on a job that we know he will do well. We are very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, has become the new Deputy Chairman of Committees.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lord Merthyr, the Lord Airedale, the Lord Douglas of Barloch, the Lord Strang, the Lord Grenfell, the Baroness Wootton of Abinger, the Lord Champion, the Lord St. Helens, the Lord Royle, the Earl of Shannon, the Lord Henley, the Lord Derwent, the Lord Alport, the Viscount Hood, the Viscount Goschen, the Lord Maybray-King, the Earl of Cork and Orrery, the Lord Nugent of Guildford, the Lord Segal, the Lord Popplewell, the Earl Cathcart and the Lord Amherst of Hackney be appointed the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee of seven Lords be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Commons to consider—
(1) "Every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament; being

(a) a statutory instrument, or a draft of a statutory instrument;

(b) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument;

(c) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution; or

(d) an order subject to special parliamentary procedure;

(2) "Every general statutory instrument not within the foregoing classes, and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only, but not including Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such Measures: with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds—

(i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any Government Department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payments;

(ii) that it is made in pursuance of any enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or
590
after the expiration of a specific period;

(iii) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent Statute confers no express authority so to provide;

(iv) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;

(v) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification under the proviso to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, where an Instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;

(iv) that there appears to be a doubt whether it is intra vires or that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made;

(vii) that for any special reason its form or purport call for elucidation;

(viii) that its drafting appears to be defective; or

on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or on the policy behind it; and to report their decision with the reasons thereof in any particular case:—
That the Lords following, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, be named of the Committee:

D. Atholl,

E. Cork and Orrery,

L. Darling of Hillsborough,

L. Fletcher,

L. Molson,

L. Peddie,

L. Stamp.

That two be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.
That the Committee have power to appoint one or more Sub-Committees severally to join with any Sub-Committee or Sub-Committees appointed by the Committee appointed by the Commons; and to refer to such Sub-Committee or

591
Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee.
That it be an instruction to the Committee that they do not consider any instrument which is directed by Act of Parliament to be laid before and to be subject to proceedings in the Commons only; and that the Committee do not join with the Committee appointed by the Commons in considering any such instrument.
That it be a further instruction to the Committee that, before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any instrument, the Committee do afford to any Government department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to them or to any Sub-Committee of the Committee such explanations as the department think fit.
That the Joint Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith and to propose that the Joint Committee do meet in Committee Room No. 4 on Monday next at half 4 o'clock.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Community proposals, whether in draft or otherwise, to obtain all necessary information about them, and to make reports on those which, in the opinion of the Committee, raise important questions of policy or principle and on other question to which the Committee consider that the special attention of the House should be drawn;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the Committee:

E. Dudley,

E. Lauderdale,

E. Selkirk,

L. Bethell,

L. Diplock,

L. Drumalbyn,

592

B. Emmet of Amberley,

L. Fulton,

L. Hale,

L. Hill of Luton,

L. Lloyd of Hampstead,

L. Lloyd of Kilgerran,

L. Mais,

B. Phillips,

L. Rhodes,

B. Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie (Chairman).

L. Walston,

B. White.

That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the Committee; that two be the quorum of such Sub-Committees and that they have power to appoint their own Chairmen;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a Sub-Committee;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committees have power:

(i) to send for persons, papers and records; and

(ii) to adjourn from place to place;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee have power to appoint persons with specialised knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee or any Sub-Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, on behalf of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, pursuant to Standing Order No. 49, the Lords following be appointed to join with a Committee of

593
the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:—

L. Clwyd,

L. Cross of Chelsea,

L. Foot,

L. Guest,

L. Hacking,

L. Janner,

L. Lyell,

L. Lloyd of Hampstead,

L. Meston,

L. Milner of Leeds,

L. Nathan,

L. Simon of Glaisdale.

That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a Message Ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE
3.29 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND rose to move, That this House takes note of the Special Report of the Select Committee (Session 1974). The noble Lord said: My Lords, it would be churlish of me to start without first saying a word or two in appreciation of the much undeserved but acceptable comments made by various Members of your Lordships' House. When in January, 1973, we joined the European Community, we became partners in a law-making body of an unusual kind, partners in a body which made laws which were binding, or which could become binding, on the citizens of all member countries in which our Government would participate through the relevant Minister taking part in the Council of Ministers' decisions, but in which our Parliament would not participate. It was therefore obvious that some machinery had to be devised so that the traditional function of Parliament in protecting the rights of the citizens of this country could be carried out.
For that purpose—as your Lordships well recollect; this is very familiar ground—the Maybray-King Committee was set
594
up, and its recommendation was accepted by your Lordships' House that a Select Committee should be formed which would have the responsibility and duty of examining and considering all proposals emanating from Brussels, proposals made by the Commission of the Community to the Council of Ministers and reporting to this House those which were of importance in content and policy and therefore worthy of consideration by your Lordships. It is that Committee's first Report which we are now considering.
It is a Committee which had been functioning for three months by the time this Report was produced—not by the time it was printed, because, as your Lordships are aware, there is a certain interregnum between preparing matter for printing and circulating the printed document. I hope that that will be much reduced and almost extinguished in the months ahead, but that is something to remember with regard to all Reports which have been made and which have not yet reached your Lordships for the simple reason that they have not been printed. What we are considering is the first three months' work of this Committee, of which I was greatly privileged to be Chairman.
I should like to start by drawing your Lordships' attention to what has been done and the method we have adopted to do it. In all these matters almost without exception, we have followed the wise advice of the Maybray-King Committee. First, to get an idea of the scope of the work, may I remind your Lordships that owing to the sixteen months' delay which occurred between our joining the Community and the Committee being set up there developed a considerable backlog which, added to the new proposals being made during the course of the three months under discussion, made a total of some 400 proposals to be considered. That represents a challenge. Of course, the larger part of those proposals would be likely to be of a kind which, if they had been the subject of domestic legislation, would not be likely to arouse great interest among your Lordships and would not indeed take up much, if any, of the time of your Lordships' House. So it was clearly necessary to devise some method of separating out those which were in that category, and those which would, or might, need to be brought to

595
the attention of your Lordships' House and be the subject of debate if necessary.
Accordingly, a process of sifting was adopted and we followed the suggestion made in the Maybray-King Committee. It fell mainly to the Chairman of the European Committee to select or sift those proposals which fell into category A—namely, not worth bothering your Lordships with; and those which fell into category B—namely, those which after they had been throughly examined and considered and evidence taken and conclusions drawn, should be reported fully to your Lordships' House. Accordingly, as paragraph 7 of the Report explains, this sifting process was done.
But after sifting there nevertheless remained, from the workload of about 400 proposals, 130 proposals which needed, or seemed to need, to be examined and considered. That, again, is a large number and it is of a large variety. When I say "variety", I mean a variety of topics which would have engaged the interest and responsibility of many different Government Departments. So one had to devise a further system not only of selection or sifting, but a system whereby all the remaining category B items could be examined, as far as possible in a reasonably short time, and evidence taken and so on. Therefore, five sub-committees were appointed, broadly on the basis of suitable groupings of Government Departments, and manned in part by the membership of the main Committee; but as, clearly, that membership was not sufficient to go round, having regard to the fact that it would be impossible to expect every Lord to be able to attend on every occasion, manned to some very valuable extent by co-option. Therefore, again as foreseen by the Maybray-King Report this is the way in which the Committee set to work; first, by sifting; and, secondly, by having a number of sub-committees examining at the same time a series of proposals with a view to reporting on them to your Lordships' House.
May I now come straight away to the results that have been achieved by the Committee—and, again, I am speaking of the period of the first three months of the Committee, ending broadly with the start of the Recess. It is, therefore, necessary for me to say—and to thank
596
all members of the Committee accordingly—that, of course, the work of the Committee and of the sub-committees continued during the Recess, though not with the same regularity as during the time the House was sitting. The result has been that the sift which was nearly completed at the end of the period in the Report has now been completed, and there remain in the process of examination by the sub-committees a number of proposals, nearly all of which are not urgent. It will be appreciated that a number of proposals are made by the Commission to the Council of Ministers which do not stand a hope of early consideration or early adoption. They are not intended for that; they are intended for careful long-term consideration. Therefore, all of those have been included in the figures in the Report which is before your Lordships.
I am making the simple point that inasmuch as we had during the first three months caught up with the sixteen months' backlog, completed the sifting process, completed examination of all the proposals deserving examination, with the exception of those which were not of an urgent nature, it would be fair to conclude that the Committee had in that period got on top of its work. I am happy to say that that is the case, and that there is now a Committee functioning which not only has got on top of its backlog and knows its work, but which is able to cope with the current volume of work coming before it and likely to come before it. Therefore, the machinery envisaged by the Maybray-King Committee, if I may say so—I am in a little difficulty here because I was not entirely absent from the deliberations of that Committee myself—was wisely thought out. I cannot say that the Committee was wise, but I can certainly say that the Chairman was extremely wise. Therefore, one is happy that the Report can describe that result.
My Lords, that result was not obtained—I am going to be fairly practical and factual about this—without a great deal of work by the members of the Committee and the co-opted members of the sub-committees. The volume of paper descending on members of the Committee was enormous. We nearly had to get to the stage of providing one lady with

597
masculine assistance in order to carry the paper; it was physically of such proportions. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will permit me to express my appreciation to the members, co-opted members, and chairmen of the subcommittees, because it is the subcommittees which did the examination and calling of witnesses and the drawing of reports. The burden fell on the chairmen of the sub-committees, and I express my great personal appreciation to them, to the staff who worked for us so well, and to the legal adviser, Sir Charles Sopwith, whose services we were fortunate enough to be able to secure.
I repeat that the work was not done without that effort or without a measure of co-operation from all concerned which I have never experienced in any similar activity before. It was amazing. In the first place, we had complete co-operation from the other House, complete exchange of papers, and unique provisions made through the Table, under which the usual problem of having to get a special message before a Member of the other House could give evidence here, or vice versa, was overcome for all time. We do not need to do any more of that business. If a Member wishes to give evidence from the other House he simply comes along, be it Minister or Back-Bencher, and gives evidence, and vice versa.
I myself accompanied the Chairman of the comparable Committee of the House of Commons when we went to Brussels. We had complete co-operation from Government Departments. Of course there were difficulties in the early stages of getting all the material ready and so on, but that is inevitable. I am never daunted by growing pains when you have a new organisation to set up and there are difficulties to overcome. They were simply growing pains and they have been overcome, and I foresee no difficulties in the future. The Government Departments are to be congratulated on the work they did and on the assistance they gave to our Committee. So, indeed, are Government Ministers on their willingness to come and give evidence, and for the undertakings which have been given from both Front Benches in both Houses as regards the unwillingness of the Government, in normal circumstances, to proceed with reaching decisions in Brussels in advance of consideration by the Houses
598
of Parliament of those matters upon which the respective Committees have reported as being worthy of consideration and debate. It is for that effort and that co-operation that I express my great appreciation.
I now come to the real question: how-far have we succeeded in our purpose, our purpose being to protect the rights of the citizen, and to protect the rights of Parliament in relation to legislation emanating from another place—yet a third place? I must first make the obvious point that everything that our Committee has done—and the facilities provided—has been in addition to the rights which Members of your Lordships' House already have. Not one single right has been withdrawn; that is to say, any noble Lord, irrespective of the view of the Committee, or any Member of the Committee, can raise Questions, Starred and Unstarred Questions, seek to raise a matter on short debates, and have a meeting with a Minister. Ministers are always ready to meet Members of your Lordships' House, as I well know. All these methods of airing views can continue. Nothing has been withdrawn whatsoever, and all the facilities which we are providing are additional to that.
Your Lordships are of course very familiar with the rule whereby any of your Lordships can not only attend but participate in the debate in any Select Committee; the only limitation is not being able to vote. I cannot recollect a single occasion when any of the Committees voted, so that is not a great limitation. There is that facility, which again continues and has not been withdrawn.
Some of your Lordships may feel a little anxiety—I certainly did—as to whether the selection, the sifting process, would mean that certain proposals were taken away from the purview of noble Lords for all time. That is not the case either. It did not matter whether a Committee, or I as its then Chairman, thought that a certain category was appropriate for a certain proposal. That did not determine what any of your Lordships might think about it. It helped in getting our work done, but nothing more than that. I am also relieved to note the statistics that of every ten proposals which I, as Chairman,

599
thought ought to be categorised as B—worth consideration—the sub-committees on closer examination decided that two were not worth that. Some 20 per cent. were recategorised as A; namely, not worth further consideration by the subcommittee or by the House. So one is very relieved that one has erred on the right side.
Have we succeeded in protecting the public in the sense of obtaining the views of the public? Yes, my Lords, I think we have gone a long way, considering the printing difficulties which hampered us greatly in this respect. Evidence has been taken from the public and from organisations representing the public. Whenever any such organisation has written in and asked, "Are you aware that we have certain interests? Will you bear this in mind?", we have replied, "Yes. Of course, we will be very happy to bear this in mind." The hearings have been held in public. The evidence either has been, or will be, printed. Therefore, I think it is right to say that every step has been taken to make our activities known, and to give opportunities for representation of the views of the public. Of course the debates which are about to take place are the supreme tests, and that is the way that public opinion is aroused.
Then, again, as I have already said, the Government have given these very definite promises indeed about not reaching premature decisions. By "premature", I mean in advance of a decision being taken by this House on a Report made for debate. Although in the early days it was not possible for them to withhold from reaching decisions because the Committee had not been set up and had not reported, and therefore opportunities for debate had not even been sought, one understands the context in which that happened, and that was again a part of the growing pains which inevitably one suffers when catching up to date.
The debates are the heart of the matter, and these are starting to take place in your Lordships' House to-day. As your Lordships will see from the figures, of the 34 Reports, 22 have been made, in the opinion of the Committee, for information only, and 12 have been, in the
600
opinion of the Committee, worthy of debate. That would mean about three or four per month—on the basis of the three months' work—and that would mean about one day's debate a month. I do not think that one day's debate a month on legislation emanating from Brussels represents an unmanageable figure. Therefore, I am very relieved that we can really say that the Committee is now functioning, the Reports are before your Lordships' House, and there is no reason to doubt that it can continue to cope with the volume of work coming in, and to discharge the heavy responsibilities which have been put upon it.
I should like to say a few more words before I sit down. First of all, your Lordships will have observed that I have made no reference whatsoever to pro-Market or anti-Market sentiments, for the simple reason that any such words would have been totally irrelevant. The question has not arisen, nor could it arise. Our function has been to try to fill a democratic gap while the European Parliament is not yet able to carry out its full functions there. That has been our responsibility, we being members of the Community; we have not been asked by your Lordships' House to do anything else, and that is what we have found it quite enough to do. So questions of what individual views might be with regard to remaining in or seeking to come out of the Market just have not arisen, and I hope they never will, in this Committee.
I want to make just one point which I hope your Lordships will find acceptable. I found that the key to getting through a volume of work of that new kind in rather quick time is due to a fact which is not sufficiently aired in your Lordships' House; namely, that your Lordships' House is a veritable storehouse of wisdom, skills, and talents of a kind unimaginable until one goes to friends and says, "Will you help me on this? Will you come along on that? Will you serve on that?" Many who have established themselves as major statesmen in the world have been most willing to come along and help. As I am retiring from this job, it can do no harm to tell your Lordships the reason why I think we have been able to do the work as well as we have.
It would be wrong of me to finish without wishing every success to my successor, the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie. I am sure she will enjoy the work, that her Committee will enjoy her chairmanship and that the House will enjoy the benefit of their joint wisdom. I have known the noble Baroness for some time. In fact I hope I do not embarrass the noble Baroness when I say that I remember very well her maiden speech. Not only do I remember her maiden speech, which, of course, was delivered in another place, but I remember the response by the bluff Clydesider who followed the noble Baroness and made the usual appropriate comments about the wisdom of her speech—which has been well fulfilled—and went on to say that another reason why he welcomed the noble Baroness was (if my memory serves me right) that she was "easy on the eye". I do not remember when that was, but looking at the noble Baroness I am driven to the conclusion that it must have been but yesterday. I wish her every success; I wish this Committee every success in its important task. I feel very privileged to have been concerned in its early days.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him how the sifting process by the other place is going along as compared with ours? In other words, has the other place come to the same kind of ratio as the noble Lord and his excellent Committee of a ratio 22: 12? It might be worth while to know the kind of conclusions which they have come to.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I kept myself informed of the way in which the other place was carrying out its duties, but it would be wrong of me to offer any comment. I believe they came to the conclusion that sifting was not appropriate in their case.
3.53 p.m.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, it is with extreme pleasure that I join in the congratulations to my noble friend Lord Diamond and endorse the gracious compliment he has paid this afternoon to his noble successor. I, too, have known the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, for a very long time. She has the admiration and the frienship of all the political Parties and all the Cross-Benchers
602
in the House, and we are delighted. Those of us who sat on the Select Committee of 1973 and who recommended the setting up of the Scrutiny Committee—Reports of which we are now considering—are staggered at the progress that this Select Committee has made under the distinguished Chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is to join in this debate—he made such significant contributions to our discussions last year—and that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale is to speak. I am delighted that from the old 1973 Committee we still have on this Committee the noble Lords, Lord Fulton, and Lord Dudley, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale.
From the start in 1973 we had the wholehearted support of both Front Benches. That has been constant. It began with the noble Lord, Lord Jellicoe, who was Leader at the time, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, Leader of the Government Benches, followed by the enthusiastic support of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, Leader of the House to-day, who has been in this from the start and who also served with distinction on the 1973 Committee. I congratulate him on his skill in choosing the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and his equal skill in choosing such a wonderful successor.
My Lords, the 1973 Committee emphasised a number of problems. One problem was the need to prevent Parliament from being overburdened with massive documentation. From our studies, and especially from our visits to Parliaments abroad, we thought that the problem could be solved, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said by sifting—by asking the Chairman and an official to go through the documents and put to one side those which were not important. They were called the A group. On the other side were those worthy of consideration by the Committee itself. We imagined from our experience that this B group of important ones would be, perhaps, 5 per cent. of the total number of documents. We were wrong; we underestimated the problem. As the Report has shown, far from it being 5 per cent. which were worthy of serious study by the Committees it turned out to be 30 per cent., and as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has

603
pointed out, 130 long and detailed documents have been of sufficient importance to warrant careful consideration by one of the sub-committees. So first I congratulate them on having achieved a mountain of work.
We then recommended that the task of the Committee could be carried out only if we set up specialist sub-committees. The Committee has done that. Five subcommittees, one under the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, one under the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, one under the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, one under the noble Lord, Lord Champion (who has done a splendid job and I am sorry is not joining the new Committee), and the fifth under the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. We have been fortunate to have five Chairmen of such quality, men of all parties and of no party. These Select Committees report to the major Committee, and not the least excellent feature of this first year's work has been the way in which noble Lords have consented to come forward to be co-opted because of specialist knowledge. They have worked enthusiastically and given service to the five sub-committees. The House is indeed indebted to some 21 noble Lords who have accepted co-option on to one or other of the five committees. That number will grow as the years go on.
The Report we are considering shows that a splendid start has already been made. Each sub-committee has met once a week on average, has met, as the Chairman proudly said, during the Recess, and has taken evidence from expert witnesses, and prepared Reports. There have been 42 meetings of subcommittees apart from the main Committee meetings and, as we foresaw, the Reports take certain varied classic shapes. A Report will indicate that a certain document coming from the Commission is important, so important that it needs a debate; may be so important that it needs debate urgently—and I shall refer to urgency a little later on. Another group of documents will be regarded by the Committee as important enough for the House to be informed of their importance because they contain very useful information, although not warranting a special debate. Then, some of the documents which the Chairman himself has
604
regarded as important enough to go to to the Committee have been, on reflection, wiped out and the number of documents to come to the House has been thus reduced.
Let me illustrate the kind of Report. Here is one on Prepackaging:
"The Committee consider the proposal is one which raises important matters of policy to which the attention of the House should be drawn, but they are satisfied that in all the circumstances the adoption of an average system would be of economic benefit to the United Kingdom and there can be no doubt that failure to do so would be prejudicial to British trade in the Community."
Important, but not important enough, for the Committee to wish to oppose.
Then, a second one, on Radio Interference:
"The Committee consider that the proposal raises matters of policy and submit this Report to the House for information."
And for information only. A third one—probably the most important in some ways as the years go on—this time on the Regional Development Fund:
"The Committee consider that the proposals raise important questions of policy and principle, to which the special attention of the House should be drawn, but that no useful purpose would be served at present by a major Report to the House, so long as the precise nature of the proposals which will emerge from renegotiation are at large. They intend to consider the matter further when information is forthcoming on the character of the amended proposals for a Regional Development Fund, and believe that at that stage it might be thought appropriate to have a full debate in the House."
These are different kinds of recommendations from the Committee. It is significant that 12 subjects, in 12 documents, have been regarded by the Committee as sufficiently important for it to demand a debate. If one looks at the Report one will sometimes see under tabulated reports of the sub-committee in the last column, "debate", This indicates that that topic is one of the 12. I am worried about the time factor in two ways, whether the House can provide opportunities for 12 debates. On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has pointed out, if we have perhaps three mini debates in a day we might possibly be able to do the job. But 12 subjects for debate in only three months work would suggest that there might be 30 in a Session, and I am therefore still anxious.

605
My Lords, the main purposes of the Diamond Committee are first to inform the House—indeed, to inform the general public—about what is happening in this European Parliament to which we belong. We can be critical; we must be critical. I have always thought at the same time that we can be positively critical in expressing support for, and giving information about subjects which we support, both to the House and to the country. But the most important feature of the Diamond Committee is to press for debates. In the 1973 Select Committee we underlined the urgency of the matter which we were discussing, the need to act at an early stage. I think everybody now agrees that we should have set up a Scrutiny Committee two years ago, even before we went into Europe.
I am glad that the Report emphasises the need, whenever possible, to scrutinise proposals before they are finalised—at the earliest possible stage before the Commission or the Council, or both, have made up their minds. I quote:
"To alert the House at an early stage to controversial proposals, thus enabling Parliament to debate controversial Commission proposals at a formative stage."
It would have been a good thing if we could have debated the butter mountain before it reached the height it did two years ago. Now, thanks to the Diamond Committee and its Report, we will have an informed debate on sugar. That could perhaps have occurred earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has explained that the problem of printing, of the General Election and so on has interfered with the timing of a possible debate on sugar. The Commission sent its first Report to the Council in July. Lord Diamond's Committee considered it, I think, on August 20—certainly in mid-August—and we might have been able to take part in the sugar debate earlier than this afternoon had we been swifter. I say to the Government that we must find means of speeding up the printing of a Report, especially the Report of a Select Committee if it is urgent; and of providing a debate, if the Select Committee says that it is a debate which ought to take place urgently.
I am delighted that the parallel Committee in the other place, under Sir John Foster, carries on in the same good relations with the new Committee; that they share documentation. I think it is constitutionally
606
right that our Committee has said that Budget and fiscal matters are for the Commons Select Committee and not for ours. The Committee had to face an enormous backlog. Documentation built up all of last year; all the time we were meeting, trying to create a machine, we were aware of the fact that the backlog was accumulating constantly. The Committee has tackled this with determination. I note with pleasure the quiet confidence it expresses on page xvii:
"Considering the magnitude of the tasks imposed by the terms of reference the difficulties encountered to date appear far from insuperable."
There is a note of supreme confidence in that remark. I believe that is so because in the critical early days the Committee had an exceedingly able Chairman and exceedingly able chairmen of sub-committees, with industrious and able backing from the rank-and-file members of the committees and those who consented to be co-opted.
My last word is that I hope the Government will accept the advice of the Diamond Committee and, when the appropriate time comes, appoint the Committee, not for a Session but for a duration of Parliament. The work is continuous and ought to be able to go on independently of the break at the end of a Session. I commend the Report to your Lordships. With it, I offer the Select Committee my sincere and hearty congratulations. I believe it has made a great start under a fine Chairman. I believe it will continue to make excellent progress under that Chairman's splendid successor.
4.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity of taking part in this debate. I shall intervene but briefly on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, but I congratulate him on his Special Report. Also, I have in retrospect to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, for his earlier Report, and also commend the contribution which my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor made to that Report as well. I am glad to see that he is to speak to us this afternoon.
I will confine my remarks mainly to paragraphs 16 to 18 of that Report regarding the Committee's relations with the United Kingdom delegation to the

607
European Parliament, and also to that very significant last paragraph, paragraph 24. Before doing so I wish to take the opportunity of saying how strongly I endorse the remarks of my noble Leader Lord Carrington and my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie for the remarks which they made in the debate on the Address last Tuesday, concerning the EEC. I support also—if I may stick my neck out a little—what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said about the importance of holding more frequent meetings of Heads of States, or Governments, ultimately meeting perhaps monthly and confidentially in, as he said, "British Cabinet style". I agree with him that only collective discussion at the top level over the years will establish the understanding and confidence which will lead to the sort of Europe from which we can benefit. I was glad to hear the noble Lord say this in his most interesting maiden speech.
To get to my main points, my Lords, I should like to add how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for having decided to invite noble Lords who are members of the European Parliament to attend meetings of the Select Committee and its sub-committees as often as they are able to do so, in order to take advantage of their dual mandate. But, as Lord Diamond says, the strain imposed by this dual mandate means that we are only occasionally able to attend meetings of his committees, although we receive all the relevant papers. The fact that membership of the European Parliament can now take up to some 200 days of our working year means that for some of us it has become virtually a whole-time job—and, indeed, an unpaid job, since the increase in the cost of living and the rise in our expenses now exceeds the travelling and subsistence allowances provided by the European Parliament itself. In this connection, I hope that in parenthesis I might be allowed to say that we are emphatically not in a favourable position vis-à-vis our colleagues from the first Chambers in the Parliaments of the other eight countries. Senators in other countries of the Nine receive up to an equivalent of £10,000 per annum to attend either the European Parliament or their national Parliaments less frequently, I
608
think, than do most of your Lordships who are members of the EEC Assembly.
However, to go back to my main point, what I feel about the new Committee in your Lordships' House, which will be presided over by my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir, is this. I hope that, if it is at all possible, before that Committee decides which subjects, instruments or legislation it considers merit discussion on the Floor of your Lordships' House, members of the European Parliament might be consulted and might be specifically informed by, perhaps, the secretary of the Committee that these proposals are likely to be put forward as Motions in your Lordships' House. Then, members of the European Parliament can perhaps be asked to give their views on the matter, if they have any. Even if we, as members of the European Parliament, are unable to attend a given Committee meeting here in this building when such matters are discussed, I do not think it would delay proceedings if a message was sent to us, by telex if necessary, wherever the Peer or, indeed, the Member of the other place who happens to specialise in that question may be.
Sometimes, if the meeting of your Lordships' Committee seemed more important than the debate we were attending on the same day in Brussels, in Strasbourg, in Luxembourg or elsewhere, we might well return to attend the meeting of the Committee here in Westminster. As an example, I was asked this morning whether I would come to the first meeting of the new Committee, presided over by the noble Baroness, on Tuesday. Unfortunately, it so happens that this is perhaps the most important week in the year of a European Parliamentarian, since we shall be involved in the most vital stage of our debate on the overall budget of the Communities, and we must, if possible, all try to be there and take part in our speciality, and to vote later in the week. I need hardly add that the work of Peers in the European Parliament tends to double when Members of the House of Commons are recalled on a three-line Whip or during Election campaigns, of which, I regret to say, we have had two this year. This underlines the importance, in my view, of ultimate direct elections to the European Parliament, perhaps on the basis of the proposals made

609
by the Dutch member, Dr. Patijn, which many of your Lordships may have read, but which I strongly commend to your Lordships and which I think would be a very suitable subject for debate in your Lordships' House. But both on practical and on democratic grounds, I think we should have direct elections before the year 1980—preferably, perhaps, in 1978.
At present, members of the European Parliament from the larger countries are attempting to represent the interests of some 1½ million of their electorate, and indeed, I suppose, the interests of their country as a whole. This, as your Lordships can imagine, is, if not a mammoth at least a somewhat daunting task for some 20 Members from both Houses of Parliament at Westminster. Therefore, the sooner Labour delegates join us to make up our full quota of 36 members, the better. I feel, however, that if Peers or even Members of another place were sent a specific message as soon as it was known that the Lords or Commons Committees were likely to recommend a debate on a given subject, then we on the Continent could get a message back very quickly, and possibly our views might be of interest to members of the Committees here in Westminster. I think some kind of simple communication procedure of this kind could be devised to meet this point, and I hope that the noble Baroness will bear this in mind.
I recognise, of course, that, in the absence of a Labour delegation, a Labour Government may not be as interested in the views of Conservative, Liberal or independent Members of the House as they would be in the views of members of their own delegation if they had one. If they did have one, those members could help a great deal in renegotiation, as we are trying to do ourselves in the European Conservative Group, in the Liberal Group and by the noble Lord. Lord O'Hagan, who always obtains so much worthy publicity for all the questions which he asks. I am very glad to see that he should be here this afternoon. But, if there was a Labour delegation—and I hope the noble Led, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, will take this point-such a delegation could help him and his Government a great deal in the renegotiation procedures.
I consider, however, that for most of the time Conservative, Liberal and indeed independent members, as well as Members
610
of another place, tend to take a national, British point of view in most specific issues, without forgetting their overall European responsibility and European outlook; and I have found some present Labour Ministers very interested in what a Conservative member had to say. I have even been called by Labour Ministers for my advice on some specific question, and I was very glad to go to see them and tell them my views.
Finally, I was particularly interested to read the last paragraph of the noble Lord's Report, paragraph 24, in which I am very glad to note that he says:
"The Committee recognise that their responsibilities may in time come to be discharged within the Institutions of the European Communities, when the development of the European Parliament and the strengthening of the decision-taking processes of the EEC have made the necessary progress".
It may be of interest to your Lordships to learn that the French do not have scrutiny committees as we do. As a very distinguished French statesman said to me only last week: such Committees may perhaps inhibit European integration by over-emphasising national interests to the detriment of the interests of Europe as a whole and Britain as part of Europe. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that we should at this point in time have these Committees. The Danes and the Irish have similar ones. As the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, indicates, so long as the procedures of the EEC do not allow for full democratic scrutiny of proposals for legislation, then we need these Committees. I also agree that without them, and without the kind of informed debate such as we are having this afternoon, the Communities may well remain ill-understood in this country. I will not detain your Lordships any longer. I have made my points, and I shall be very interested to hear what the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Goronwy-Roberts, have to say in answer to me in their winding-up.
4.20 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, the three speeches which have already been made in this debate leave me with little to add, but I cannot deny myself the pleasure of congratulating the noble Lords, Lord Maybray-King and Lord Diamond, on their outstanding success in devising and carrying forward to this advanced point the machinery which

611
Parliament so badly needed for examining and bringing to notice matters from among the vast mass of documents flowing out from Brussels, which require Parliamentary attention. It must give the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, under whose Chairmanship a number of us sat with much pleasure in 1972, very great satisfaction that his Report has been almost entirely accepted and the procedure recommended in it is now shown to be in working order. I think the only glaring error that we made on that Committee was to estimate that only 5 per cent. of the documents would need to be considered for bringing to the special attention of Parliament. The Diamond Committee finds that it is nearer 30 per cent. than 5 per cent. and that, I think, increases the warmth of the tribute we should pay to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and his Committee for having carried forward the scrutiny in such a rapid way.
My Lords, I do not think that it has been mentioned—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will not mind my mentioning it—that he was in fact the only member of the Maybray-King Committee who on one occasion tried to play truant. If your Lordships care to look up the Minutes of the Maybray-King Committee, it will be found that there was one Division during its many meetings, and that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on that occasion moved the omission of the paragraph which recommended that the work in question should be done by a Select Committee. The voting was one for the Amendment and nine against. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, did not press—indeed he was not in a position to press—his point further, but whether he has since been converted or has bowed to the weight of numbers, I do not know. However, I give him all the more credit for having thrown himself into the work of the new Committee and having so loyally and successfully sought to make the new machinery effective.
My Lords, I think that all of us on the Maybray-King Committee, and probably many of your Lordships who were not on that Committee, felt acutely unhappy that so many months after Britain had entered the Community we still had no machinery for Parliamentary
612
examination of what was going on. It was a very grave defect. It was not the fault of the then Conservative Government that this happened and it is no good crying over spilt milk, but we were, I think, in considerable Parliamentary danger during that period when proposals which might not commend themselves to either or both Houses of Parliament were going forward without effective means of our challenging them or seeking to modify them.
As I understand it, when the Diamond Committee took over, it was faced with a backlog of some 271 documents and in the next three months—May, June and July of this year—there was a net increase of 132 more documents which required its attention, making some 400 altogether. The fact that the Committee brought that figure down from 400 to 119 by the end of July means that a tremendous amount of hard work had to be done, and I am sure that the major part of it fell on the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, though he will say, no doubt, that he would not have been able to do the work but for the constant helpfulness which he received from the Officers of the House and from all others who were concerned to get the machinery to work.
I am quite sure that all of us would wish to join in the tributes which have been paid this afternoon, not only to the noble Lord but to the members of his Committee and most particularly to the chairmen of the sub-committees, some of whom must have found themselves with an unexpectedly heavy load of work from which they nevertheless did not shrink. Lastly, we should pay tribute to the co-opted members who voluntarily took these burdens upon their shoulders.
I should like to ask one or two questions. The Maybray-King Committee, in the course of its Report, drew attention to the possibility that the urgency in certain cases might be such that a report of a sub-committee ought to be able to be speeded straight to the House without being considered, as would normally happen, by the main Committee. I should be interested to know from the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, whether this has ever happened in practice during these first few months. I do not think any of us would say that an urgent report from a sub-committee ought to be held back

613
from Parliament because the main Committee had not time to consider it; but I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and his colleagues will have given thought to this, even if the problem has not as yet arisen in an acute form.
My Lords, my other question is a more important one. I gather, from something said in the Report of the Diamond Committee, that the Committee has also been troubled by it. How is the normal Member of your Lordships' House to discover in advance that a sub-committee of the main Committee is to meet to discuss some document bearing on a subject in which he is particularly interested? To take an example—and it is not such an imaginary one as your Lordships might think—there might be a noble Lord who was particularly knowledgeable about shrimps. Strangely enough, shrimps are a matter which has given the Commission in Brussels some concern, and I understand that the operative law in Britain has already been modified by a regulation which was never examined by Parliament because it went through before the Diamond Committee was set up. This hypothetical Peer might be very anxious to exercise his right under the Standing Order to attend the meeting of a sub-committee when a document relating to shrimps was being examined, but he would be hard put to it to deduce, from a notice on the Order Paper that there was to be a meeting on Wednesday of the Sub-Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries, Food, Energy and Transport, that the main item on the menu for that meeting was to be a matter close to his heart. There may be some grapevine by which it is possible to convey to noble Lords what the agenda is likely to consist of when a sub-committee meeting is announced, but if this problem has not yet been solved, I urge that thought should be given to it.
We can see already from the willingness of noble Lords to be co-opted to sub-committees that there are those here in your Lordships' House who are ready to take on additional burdens, and I feel quite sure that it would be a gain to the whole strength of the Committee if more and more individual Peers could be drawn in to exercise their right of attendance and speech at sub-committee meetings, but that can only be achieved if some
614
way of informing them of the probable agenda in advance can be devised.
Naturally I join with each noble Lord who has spoken, and indeed with the whole House, in congratulating my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir on her appointment as the new Chairman of this Committee. I wish her the best of luck. She has great gifts, but I suspect she will need the luck as well. However, I am sure she knows that the House of Lords has the greatest confidence in her.
May I throw out one suggestion—not for the present but for the more distant future? It is that from time to time there should be an examination, either by a joint committee of both Houses or otherwise, of the work being done by the Commons' Committee and the Lords' Committee. I suggest this because of my experience on the subject of Statutory Instruments. In 1925 your Lordships' House set up the Special Orders Committee to keep Statutory Instruments under review, and 19 years later, in 1944, there was set up in another place a parallel Committee on Statutory Instruments. When I had the honour of being appointed Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in the 1971–72 Session, nothing struck me more sharply than the discovery that, although for 27 years the two Houses had had these parallel Committees, it had never been anybody's business to make a comparison of their operation and to see whether there were overlaps or gaps, or whether the work could be done more efficiently and more economically.
Certainly, it is not an exact comparison, but I should like it to be borne in mind that after (say) five years of the operation of these two Committees which Parliament now has on European Instruments, there should be, by some machinery or other, an examination of how the two Committees have worked, so that we can see whether there are gaps or over-lappings or whether either of the two Committees could be enabled to work more effectively. I am not proposing that this should happen for a number of years, because, quite clearly, each Committee has to settle down and get on with its very important work. It is a review which should be made not of the theory but of the practice of the two Committees, when that time comes.
4.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I should like to add expressions of my gratitude to those which have already been made on the work of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and to extend congratulations to his successor. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has pointed out, we have in the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, a reformed character, who accepted the desirability of the Select Committee as against the Standing Committee, and who then threw himself into its work. I should like especially to confirm, indeed to stress, something which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said earlier; namely, that there was absolutely no expression of any pro-or anti-Common Market sentiments in our proceedings. I have perhaps acquired the reputation of being a sceptic—indeed, such I still am—but I hope that my scepticism will be constructive in a glance into the future, in the light of our Committee's terms of reference.
The Select Committee owes to Parliament an energentic exercise of its power to send for persons, papers and records that are relevant to its wide terms of reference—significantly wider than those of another place, which are limited to secondary legislation and published documents. We are set up to consider "proposals", not decisions, "whether they are in draft or otherwise", and to obtain "all" necessary information. In effect, our job is vigilantly and resourcefully to search out any important questions of policy or principle.
After the experience of only three months' work labouring against a sixteen months' backlog, I ask myself what lessons should be drawn from those intense three months, drawn for the benefit of the successor body. Nothing in what I have to say should in the slightest degree be thought to imply any sort of criticism, either of our late Chairman or of the staff. The staff have been diligent and sophisticated; they go to endless trouble. And as for our Chairman, I must say it was for me daily an ever more educative process to sit at his feet, wondering at so penetrating a mind and so deft a diplomatist. I greatly regret his levitation to the stratosphere of a Royal Commission. My regret is only matched by my pleasure at our unexampled good fortune in the success
616
ful "hijack" of my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir.
Four points may be worth looking at. First, there is the obligation to obtain "all necessary information". From one sub-committee which dealt, under the urbane and sympathetic chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, with transport, fisheries, food and energy, there emerged the urgent report—still unprinted—which was sent to the House on July 18. This concerned the Commission's proposals for an energy policy and it arose almost by chance.
The fact was that it became common gossip in London among the oil companies that a discussion document was in circulation. It was admitted to have been in the Ministries; it was admitted to be available for discussion with the energy industry; but it was not considered in Whitehall to be available to Members of Parliament. Inquiries were made and these were usefully stimulated by a Press report, as a result of which, with the aid of our staff, we managed to identify the consequential proposal R/1472/74. The Committee looked at it, discovered the importance and urgency of it, took evidence and made an urgent report which, one learned on the grapevine privately, was of considerable value to certain Ministers. But we spotted it only thanks to a Press leak and London gossip. I do not believe that we would have spotted it otherwise.
This is no reflection on the sifting procedure, because with such a mountain of paper it was hardly surprising. Yet among the very important evidence which the Maybray-King Committee collected, notably from the German Parliament, it was found that they study Commission papers—and I quote from paragraph 120 of the report— "before they are published"; that means, before they go from the Commission to the Council. The Maybray-King Committee recommended that we should study Community proposals—-and again I quote—
"… while still in the formative stage, starting as early as possible."
That purpose is confirmed in the report which is before your Lordships this afternoon.
The questions arising, to which I should like to draw attention, are these. Do we yet have—and it is not surprising that

617
we may not have after only three months' work—the right machinery for getting the necessary information as early as possible? Have we so far, under the pressure of this backlog and with little time in which to tackle it, been too dependent on Whitehall? Have we been too dependent on Whitehall when we can, if we want, send for persons and papers anyway? Have we the right lines of communications with Brussels? Should we not be willing to have recourse to the appointment of experts, as indeed we are authorised to have recourse under our resolution of appointment?
My second main point is the question of what I call "follow through". The Maybray-King Committee suggested in paragraph 121 of their Report that scrutiny of many of the more far-reaching proposals "should be a continuing process by a sub-committee which has studied the subject in depth". In the last Parliament, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, presided with his urbanity and consideration over a sub-committee that had an absurd range of subjects to consider; agriculture, fisheries and food, transport and energy. Ought there not in future to be a separate sub-committee either on energy and transport or just on energy, and should not such a sub-committee have specialised staff to support it? As I say, we are empowered to have this under our terms of appointment.
Thirdly, there is the question of the Council of Ministers. The Maybray-King Committee made the point in paragraph 139 that the Scrutiny Committee should be free to consider whether a Ministerial Statement on Council proceedings ought to have the special attention of the House drawn to it. This was the more important, the Committee thought, inasmuch as Ministerial Statements,
"have not always been entirely satisfactory".
It may well be that our new Chairman will remember particular occasions when that thought floated about the Chamber. More especially did the Maybray-King Committee draw attention to the point in the light of the German experience.
It was made very clear at Question 371 of the Minutes of Evidence when Herr Werner Blischke, an official of the German Parliament, had been asked if he
618
could tell us whether in private session of a Parliamentary Committee the German Minister concerned would tell the Committee exactly what happened in the Council of Ministers. The answer was: "He is expected to do so". That is the German practice. I submit we should not be shy about learning from it. The Government have not yet responded—and this is a point which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, will be interested to consider—to the suggestion made in the Maybray-King Report, paragraph 20, that it would be "greatly for the convenience of Parliament" if they would state their position on the Luns doctrine, which referred to the controlled leakages that had become the custom from the Council.
The Council of Ministers is now the most important body of the Community. As an institution it is not accountable. It is not—repeat "not" —comparable to a cabinet. Some 150 persons attend it. Its continuing work proceeds through the Committee of Permanent Representatives. In some respects its activities resemble those of a legislature and its legislative decisions bind the citizen without further appeal. The only resemblance it has to a cabinet is that it meets in camera, and yet, as I have suggested, Ministers atttending it give out partial and slanted accounts of what took place.
All in all, Parliament deserves to know much more about what happens in the Council of Ministers; and at the present period of renegotiation surely Parliament needs to know as much as at any time. The Scrutiny Committee of the last Parliament did not manage to get around to any examination of Council proceedings and the Statements made on them by Ministers. Even now, it was the other place which this week, on Monday, was given an outline agenda of Council business for the coming month, and it has had the opportunity to question Mr. Hattersley about it. Surely that underscores the importance of this Committee in the future, bearing in mind the guidance of the Maybray-King Committee, looking at Ministerial Statements and Council proceedings.
Finally, there is the question of the summit meetings. The Maybray-King Committee stressed the value of the then

619
future Select Committee, looking, as it put it,
"… at Community objectives laid down by meetings of Ministers outside the formal structure of Community institutions".
That is in paragraph 120. The first summit occurred in October, 1972, and at it the United Kingdom Government consented to the aim of economic and monetary union—for which the current "shorthand" is EMU. That was never the subject of Parliamentary scrutiny in this House, whether by debate or by the Select Committee. Yet paper after paper, document after document issues from the Commission to the Council carrying a preamble which, after all, corresponds to the Long Title of a Bill, quoting as its context and purpose the advance towards economic and monetary union. It is something to which this House has, to my knowledge, never formally consented. Here, again, was a range of matters which the outgoing Committee could not get around to due to its short life and the immense backlog.
What I have said is not in any sense a criticism of what was done, but rather an endeavour constructively to set some sights for the future. I trust that the new Committee, largely freed of the burden of the backlog and chaired by one whose mind and Parliamentary skill are as fair as her ever welcome appearance, will rise to these new horizons and new opportunities.
4.50 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, at the end of the Special Report that we are debating to-day the Committee that has been until recently chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, suggests that one day it may be possible for the scrutiny of draft legislation flowing from the Community to be vetted and monitored within Community institutions. It is not possible at the moment, and indeed it would be unthinkable so long as there were no Labour representatives at Strasbourg—and I, as all other members there, regret their absence and hope it will soon be remedied. Nor indeed would it be possible to think of it seriously until a European Parliament was elected. But may I reassure the noble Earl who has just sat down that two of the aspects of the nature of the Community to which he himself referred in the closing section of his
620
speech are aspects that the European Parliament—not yet democratic, not yet directly elected, still without Labour Members from Britain—is itself concerned about.
One of these aspects is the secret legislative activity, the unaccountable legislative activity of the Council of Ministers. Many members of the European Parliament continue to press for the Council to meet in the open when acting in a legislative capacity. The other point the noble Earl mentioned was the super-imposition of the summit meeting above all the institutions of the Community in such a way that what the "summits" decide is not accountable through the normal institutions of the Community. The noble Earl was complaining that we had not in this House debated the communiqué of the summit conference of Heads of State and Government in 1972. The European Parliament is similarly concerned that it has not enough lien on the Council of Ministers, and we are very much hoping that after the next summit conference we shall be able to act in parallel, as the noble Earl himself was suggesting, by obtaining a direct explanation from the Council of Ministers of what it is that they have decided in the names of all the people of the member States.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and also for pursuing this point. Would he agree that there might be some merit in working towards the objective that when the Council behaves as a legislative body there should be full and verbatim accounts of what it does?
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I do not wish to stray too far from the subject in question, but I am revealing no secrets when I say that tape recordings are made of Council proceedings and these are kept by officials of the Council; they are at the disposal of the individual Member Governments, and some Member Governments release them. To return to the subject directly under discussion, I have been unable to participate fully in the work of the Committee whose Report we are discussing to-day because, as the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, explained fully and convincingly, a great burden of work falls on Members of the European Parliament.

621
However, even if I had not been absent so often from this country, I wonder whether I should have been able to exercise my statutory right under the Standing Order to attend and participate in the work of the various sub-committees. I was very interested in, and would endorse wholeheartedly, what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, had to say on this subject. May I make a plea to the noble Baroness and to the Clerks that if the Members of this House who are not co-opted members or full members of the committees are still to have the right to attend these committees, some much better system of information should be devised; the agendas of these committee meetings should be published more comprehensively, and a subject likely to come up for discussion at a particular meeting should be advertised, perhaps in the Library, particularly when Government Ministers or other distinguished experts are giving evidence to the committee.
The Committee refer towards the end of their Report to their role in informing the Press and the public and to the nature of the Community legislation. As someone who has learned from working in one of the European Parliament's 12 specialist sub-committees which meet continuously, two or three times a month in Brussels, monitoring draft Community legislation, may I say that these subcommittees of your Lordships' House have a very important role to fill in so far as public information goes. One thing I have learned is that the nature of draft legislation in the Community is very different from the nature of draft legislation here. Many Community proposals are what we would call Green Papers or White Papers or even, very often, Statutory Instruments. Some are small technical measures merely implementing something that has already been carried into law some time before, while others, such as the European Draft Statute on Company Law, kick around for years going through endless modifications. There is an exaggerated fear encouraged, if not entirely created, by the media in this country (I am not an attacker of the media; I am a supporter of them) in that these draft proposals are presented as if they were British draft legislation. In fact, most Community proposals are much more like discussion papers, White Papers or Green Papers, documents which
622
are often amended, and amended again, delayed and altered out of all recognition by the time they finally pass into law.
So I suggest to the Government and to the noble Baroness in her new role that it would be much to the advantage of the Committee and of the Government to encourage a wider knowledge of the work of the committees, because for those who fear that a whole stream of alien legislation is being imposed unwillingly on this country the true situation could easily be demonstrated by having meetings of the sub-committees in public, by taking evidence in public and giving a platform for people concerned about the nature of draft legislation; and it would be as well for those giving evidence to know that their point of view had been taken into account by Parliament. Also, it could be very useful for the Government when attending the Council of Ministers to be able to say, "We took evidence on this matter in one of our Houses of Parliament and all those who were concerned about it attended and gave full vent to what they were worried about, and Parliament presented a report." The Committee at the moment do excellent work but their work is not sufficiently well known. I am sure there are many people with genuine worries—perhaps unfounded worries—about the nature of Community draft legislation who could easily be satisfied if they had an opportunity of presenting evidence in public to one of these excellent sub-committees of your Lordships' House; and in so doing the Committee would be reinforcing Parliamentary institutions in this country, at the same time, possibly, as helping the work of the Government and the Council of Ministers.
My Lords, I have spoken enough. I should like to congratulate the members of this Committee, the Chairman who is retiring, and his successor, on what they have done in showing the resilience of your Lordships' House in adapting so quickly and so successfully to this new challenge. May I say that there is every opportunity for peaceful and productive co-existence between the European Parliament and this Committee. I hope that this co-existence will be more in evidence in the future than it has been up to now, although problems will inevitably remain. I attach a lot of weight to what the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, had to say about possible ways of making

623
greater use of the European Parliamentarians' expertise in the work of this sub-committee.
My Lords, may I conclude by saying that while welcoming the work of this Committee and hoping that it will continue in the way that it began, the best way to make Europe democratic and the best way to make the Community fit in more closely with the needs of democracy and Parliamentary traditions is to send Labour Members to Strasbourg.
5.1 p.m.
LORD CHELWOOD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, speaks with great authority on European affairs and has made, if I may say so with respect to him, an outstanding contribution to the work in Strasbourg, Luxembourg and Brussels which I have been able to see at first hand. My excuse for intervening in this debate is that I was myself a member of the Conservative delegation to the European Parliament for eighteen months until last August and a Joint Deputy Leader with the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. I was myself a member of the Political Affairs Committee and of the External Economic Relations Committee.
My Lords, in my opinion the Scrutiny Committees of both Houses have undertaken very successfully, on the whole, an important and essential role. This job is done in all of the national Parliaments with the exception only, as the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, mentioned, of France. Inevitably there has been some duplication between the work of the Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships' House and another place, despite the exceptional powers sensibly given to both Committees to facilitate liaison, which is described in paragraph 17 of the Special Report of which we are taking note. I should like to agree very warmly with what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said, speaking from very long experience, of the difficulties and duplication that can arise when parallel committees of the two Houses are working on the same subject. It may well be that, in view of the very heavy backlog of work which has piled up so far as the Scrutiny Committee in another place is concerned, and the anxiety expressed about this by the Leader of the House who is considering a new method of
624
scrutiny, in their wisdom Members of another place will give further thought to the possibility of a Joint Committee. However, I am sure it would be impertinent of me to go beyond that.
My Lords, another reason why there was such a big backlog of work has already been referred to in several speeches by noble Lords. This was the 16 months' late start that was made, but that is all water under the bridge—or perhaps I should say water over the bridge—and what matters now is the future. But there is a third reason to which attention has not been drawn and it is something with which we have to live. It is that the European Parliament and its Committees meet for 11 months out of 12, whereas we meet for 8 months out of 12. They sit in September, October and January and there are, therefore, three months when they are churning out draft legislation of all kinds—draft papers. Regulations, Directives and so on—when we ourselves are not sitting. This requires further thought and it leads me to say a word about paragraph 18 which refers to the "dual mandate".
The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said something about this in a very modest way. He told us—and it came as no surprise to me—that over the last 12 months he himself has spent something like 200 working days as a Joint Deputy Leader of the European Conservative Group. I myself did not spend quite so many working days abroad in 1973, but I was abroad for 150 days; or, to put it another way, I was abroad on European Parliamentary work for three days out of five, counting Mondays to Fridays as working days. I do not think that the general public has fully understood yet quite what a heavy strain is imposed on Members of your Lordships' House—and an even greater strain on Members of another place. As has been mentioned in this debate, this means that the opportunities for giving evidence to the Select Committee or its sub-committees are few and far between, and may often mean flying home in order to do so and the giving of ample warning.
My Lords, this would not be the right time to go in any detail into the relief of the strains that the "dual mandate" imposes, which undoubtedly result from the introduction of direct elections. However, indirect reference is made in the

625
Special Report to this possibility, and I think that we should note in passing here that the Political Affairs Committee of the European Parliament has already given consideration and, I think, is due to give further consideration at a further meeting to the most excellent draft Report on Direct Elections, the rapporteur of which is Dr. Patijn, the Dutch Socialist Member. I think I am right in saying that this Report may well come before a plenary meeting of the European Parliament next month.
Choosing the ideal interim system for this country to introduce direct elections will be far from easy because we have a pure majority system. Introducing direct elections into a country like Holland, for example, which has pure proportional representation, or into Germany, which has a mixture of the two systems, is comparatively easy. I hope that I shall not be thought immodest if I draw attention to the fact that on Wednesday I shall be taking the chair at a Press Conference to present to the Press the report of an all-Party study group, which was commissioned by the British Council for European Movement, called "Direct Elections to the European Parliament". Mr. Michael Stewart and Mr. Alan Beith were the two other Members of Parliament who belonged to the study group and we had the advantage of taking most valuable evidence from the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. Indeed, the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, to introduce direct elections into this country appears as an Appendix to this Report. I hope that this will contribute to the national debate on this very important subject. Certainly there is no doubt that when the time comes when we are able to introduce direct elections, so long as we bear in mind the immense importance of very close liaison between the Members of the European Parliament and the Members of the British Parliament considerable relief will be provided which is badly needed.
My Lords, may I say a brief word about the last paragraph of the Conclusion of the Special Report. I am thinking of the first sentence in the last paragraph; perhaps I may be allowed to read it:
"The Committee recognise that their responsibilities may in time come to be discharged within the Institutions of the European Communities, when the development of the
626
European Parliament and the strengthening of the decision-taking processes of the EEC have made the necessary progress".
That is perfectly true, but unfortunately progress has been disappointingly slow—far too slow. There have been inexcusable delays and failures on the part of the Council of Ministers to follow through the positive promises which were made at successive Summit meetings. I am glad that the next Summit meeting will study this question again and that we may at last begin to move in the right direction because, as we all know, the European Parliament has no legislative power whatsoever. I hope it is on the verge of getting some real "teeth". But if I may be allowed to point this out, it has two advantages which we do not have in either House of British Parliament. It has the most unusual power of, what I might call, pre-legislative discussion; which, put in another way, is a dialogue with the Commission. This is something which our own Select Committee shares with it, in that they are able to look at draft legislation in its early stages. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, said about this point, because if one does not look at legislation in the early stages it is often too late. So the European Parliament and its Committees have this pre-legislative power which is a most valuable one, the importance of which is sometimes under-estimated.
May I say a couple of sentences about the extraordinarily good work done by the overworked staff of the Select Committee? If I may say so with respect to your Lordships, it was absurdly small when the Committee was first set up. But of course it was a matter of trial and error and nobody knew exactly how heavy the work was going to be. I was glad to read that the staff had been very much strengthened and I hope that that will ease the work of the Committee.
Before I conclude, I should like to issue a brief word of warning arising from the system of classification into A and B lists, described in paragraph 6 of the Special Report. Obviously, it came as a surprise to many of your Lordships to find how many of the draft reports, regulations and so on, really merited consideration by your Lordships' House. The estimate in the Maybray-King Report—which I thought was quite

627
brilliant, if I may say so with respect—was that only one in 20 might merit such consideration; whereas it has turned out that very nearly one-third deserve it. Again, this was guesswork on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and those who work with him, but it has meant that the amount of work which falls to this Committee, and which also falls on your Lordships' House, is a great deal heavier than had originally been supposed.
However, with respect, I think we should be careful not to overestimate the need to debate measures proposed by the Community, which have already been through every conceivable check and control before seeing the light of day. They have been considered by the Government Department concerned in Whitehall; they have been through the fine mesh net of our Permanent Representative and his excellent and very large staff; they have possibly been considered by some professional body such as the veterinary surgeons or accountants or farmers; they have very likely been considered by the Economic and Social Committee, which I am sorry to say is not fully up to strength as far as this country is concerned, and they will also, of course, have been considered by the relevant committee of the European Parliament.
It is true to say that almost the most severe criticism one can make—in the light of my experience of the European Committee—is that it is altogether too slow-moving and that many desirable things never seem to happen because so much consultation takes place. The chances of their trying to ram something down the throat of some member country which is unwilling to accept the legislation concerned are very remote indeed. I have not yet seen it happen, particularly since they gave up the idea of harmonisation for its own sake, which I was very pleased indeed about. So it is a slow-moving body which takes the utmost care in consulting everybody concerned over a long period of time. I think that that, also, has been somewhat misunderstood.
Therefore, I should like to suggest with respect that it is quite unnecessary for the Select Committee to give even greater scrutiny to draft proposals emanating from Brussels than they would give to draft proposals emanating from
628
Whitehall, unless there is some particularly good reason for it. As the Select Committee's experience grows I think they will be inclined to take the view that less Community legislation merits debate in your Lordships' House than has been the case in the past and therefore I would hope to see the amount of work that we are expected to do—even if we do it in the shape of a "mini-debate", which has been mentioned as a possibility—decreasing rather than increasing. This is all the more likely to happen as a result of the skill and experience of the chairman of the Select Committee and of its larger staff. It places a very heavy burden of responsibility on the Chairman, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, knows from personal experience and as the noble Baroness will soon find out.
To put it in another way—and this is the last point I wish to make—speaking of Parliament as a whole we are surely not seeking more control over British Government proposals than the British Parliament previously exercised, or now exercises, simply because such proposals have been agreed with eight other I countries. That may seem to be a rather strange way of putting it but perhaps it is not an ineffective way of putting it. If I may give one example from my own experience, when I was a member of the External Economic Relations Committee we had the right, and we exercised the right, to scrutinise draft treaties with every country into which the Community, under its common commercial policy, entered into a trade agreement, and we have been claiming the right, which I think we have virtually acquired, to seek to amend such trade agreements, but finally neither your Lordships' House nor another place has ever exercised such a right at all.
There may even be some of your Lordships who have never read the Ponsonby rules and did not even know that they existed. I did not know that they existed until about eighteen months ago when I was asked to draft a memorandum for this Committee on the extent to which we should seek to control or even have a veto over trade agreements between the Community and third countries. I then studied the Ponsonby rules and so far as I know they have never been used, either by your Lordships' House or by another place. Trade agreements, so to speak, go through "on the nod", But,

629
of course, there will be ample work for the sub-committee concerned with trade agreements to do in all kinds of matters, such as the renewal of the GATT agreement and even smaller matters of great importance which affect the United Kingdom, such as the treatment of Hong Kong textiles, to give just one example.
In conclusion, I should like to say that I attach the very greatest importance to the work of the Select Committee. I hope to be able to contribute to it in some modest way. I believe it has what I might call a bridging role in order to ensure that the gulf between the British Parliament and the European Community, which undoubtedly exists, can be crossed easily, quickly and naturally, but I hope and expect to see the work of the Select Committee gradually diminish as membership of the Community is increasingly recognised as being in the national interest and is therefore more and more taken for granted. In my experience the bureaucrats in Brussels are very far from being faceless. Meanwhile, I feel strongly that so far as your Lordships' House is concerned the Select Committee, working very much on the right lines, has done an absolutely first-class job and I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on his Chairmanship of this Committee and wish every success to the noble Baroness who is succeeding him.
5.18 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, my intervention will be brief. I welcome this debate as a valuable and timely chance of spreading information about Europe at this important time. Important though this work is we must all realise that it is uphill work. Like other Members of the Committees I am proud of having been asked to be a co-opted member of one of the sub-committees, but I claim that in the long run this work is more attractive to Members of your Lordships' House than to Members of another place. However, we tend to attract less notice in the Press and on the television for the work that we do here.
We depend for this spread of information about Europe largely on the Press and the television, but I think we must all agree that they prefer tales of human misfortune to reports of procedures, and it is largely procedures about which we
630
have been talking here this afternoon. If some Member of your Lordships' House had the misfortune to fall down on the way home this evening and to be run over, whether by a bicycle or by a bus, I am sure this incident would have far more space given to it in the newspapers to-morrow—possibly even space on the front pages—than any minor sentence on the back page that this present debate is likely to be given. But it could be that in the future these debates, provided they are short, will be more attractive to the Press and television than our talks to-day, which must in the very nature of things largely be concerned with procedure.
It is curious, but people in this country are indifferent to Europe. It is curious because we are not only so close to it, but are really a part of Europe. One of my first impressions in 1945, when I first became a Member of another place, was the lack of interest at a time when I should have thought it would have been of absorbing interest, not least because we had the special responsibility at that time of occupying large parts of it. But it seemed that the less the Members in the other place wanted to have to do with Europe, the better they were then pleased.
If I may turn again to procedure, there now comes the question of timing. This work of scrutiny is not a field for snap decisions. The more evidence one hears, the longer the time taken and hence, the easier it is to get left behind, even to the degree of being too late to influence events. I am sure we must be able to demonstrate to the public that any reports made by our Committee and debates in this House are in the end effective, and are not just pigeon-holed. I am sure that one of the most valuable things the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, could tell us when he speaks in this debate is in what manner he sees these Reports having effect, who they are going to influence, and exactly what bearing they have on those decisions taken a long way away from here but which, none the less, are going to be very important to the lives of all in this country.
5.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I say a word or two before the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, replies. I should like to join other noble Lords in

631
congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on his work. I admit that when I first went into the Committee I wondered what on earth was going to happen. If we look at the first pages of the Report of the Committee, we see that there were 600-odd documents sculling around the place. The fact that we have been able to get through them and, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said, the fact that there was very little disagreement in any of the Committees once we had grasped what they were about, is largely due to the leadership given by the noble Lord. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that of the 600 documents some were highly unimportant, but how were we to know that unless we looked at them and had some idea of what they were about? Some were wisely put out almost like balloons to try out, long ahead of requirements. This has the disadvantage of making a great deal of paper available, but it has the advantage of giving plenty of time. This is no bad system.
I think the Committee has the advantage of learning something of the approach to these problems which is being made from Brussels. It is utterly different from our concept of legislation. It takes one quite a long time to grasp their approach, their manner of working. Anyone who goes there will be quite surprised at the complete difference in their view of legislation from our own. It is wrong to pretend that we need to be very frightened of this. In the Law Committee there were few, if any, proposals which would affect, except in a minor degree, the law of this country. There was nothing at all we need be afraid of. There are certain differences of principle, I think, in the sense that we are inclined to run many things by voluntary organisation, within professions and organisations, whereas France particularly is more inclined to work by Statute law. Generally, we obey the law in this country. Certain other countries do not pay quite so much attention to it. They are inclined to sign an international document without having a very firm intention of carrying out what that document contains. Perhaps we are slow about signing it, but I do not think there is any need to be anxious about it.
My Lords, the third thing that impressed me was the preparation, the
632
readiness to help and the knowledge of the civil servants in this country with regard to what is required. Obviously they had given an immense amount of attention to the problems being evolved in Brussels. They were extremely well informed, and we gained a great deal of information from these people.
I would refer to a point raised about timing by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. We made a recommendation from the Committee. When is it going to be debated in the House? It will certainly not be straight away, and whether we will even find one day a month to debate it, I do not know. The document of itself must be the important document which can be taken to Brussels or wherever it is, by our representatives. The Report made by the Committee is as much as they can go by, because debates will not take place here frequently. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who suggested they should be informed when certain subjects were under discussion. This is very difficult indeed. Most of our meetings were held at rather short notice, and we were not told until a short time in advance what was going to be under discussion, or its significance. I have no doubt that this is something my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie—who I warmly congratulate on her appointment, and who I am delighted to see taking on this important task—will do. I have no doubt she will find a way of doing so. It will be difficult to arouse any great publicity interest in the work of this Committee. It is important that the public should realise that this House is taking seriously its responsibility in seeing what is being produced by the legislative procedure or by the proposals coming out of Brussels.
5.27 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I apologise to the House for the fact that my name does not appear on the official list? It was put down some few days ago through the official channels, but there was some hiatus in those mysterious ways with which I am not acquainted. I should like to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on his most efficient and sympathetic approach to the vast problems which faced him when he first undertook the chairmanship of this important

633
Committee. I admire his administrative skills in disposing of this vast amount of work and his ability to inspire members of the Committees, co-opted or otherwise, to be so active. I wish him well in the important task which he now has before him.
If I may add a personal note, I was greatly honoured when he invited me to become the chairman of sub-committee E on law. I felt very honoured for two reasons. It was obviously a personal tribute which was most unjustified but I felt honoured, also, that, to use his words, he felt it would be tidier and perhaps equitable from a purely administrative point of view that perhaps one of the chairmen of a sub-committee should be a member of the Liberal Party which had been so concerned with EEC matters, and this had not gone unnoticed by him. I found that this sub-committee was no sinecure. Alone of all the subcommittees, it had to read all the documents produced; whereas the other subcommittees dealt with a chosen number, a much smaller number.
As this sub-committee appears likely to be reconstituted, I should like to pay great tribute to the work done by members of it—the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, whose great experience of the United Nations was so valuable to us, and the noble Lord, Lord Hale, who worked indefatigably, at times when he was not very well; he never failed to find the important substance of so many of these complicated documents. Then there was the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, who was Quain Professor of Law in the University of London and of great assistance. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, was indefatigable and avid in his reading of the papers; and on one occasion we had the honour of having the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, sitting with us when we took evidence from a member of the secretariat of the Lord Chancellor's Department. The load on the secretariat was immense. Lord Diamond has referred to these matters. I should also like to pay a tribute to the initial administrative work of Mr. Grey, who now sits at the Table, and also to Mr. Brendan Keith who has succeeded him. At all times we also had the great assistance, as Lord Diamond has mentioned, of our legal adviser, Sir Charles Sopwith.
634
May I say a word about the general impression that we, as members of the sub-committee, had about the contents of the documents that we had to examine? It was to me very exciting and educative, though sometimes rather disturbing, to see all the papers on multifarious subjects that issued from Brussels. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, when he explained to us the nature of so many of these documents. I must say that when we read through all these documents we were often at a loss to appreciate the reasons for their publication. We often felt that many of the documents were unnecessary. We often felt that it would be interesting to know what procedure was adopted at Brussels to prompt the issue of many of these documents.
It seemed clear that many of the draft rules and regulations were often very Germanic in form, and we have speculated on the reason for, and perhaps the advantage of, this phenomenon. However, I had had the advantage over my colleagues that as a Silk at the Patent Bar I had been closely associated professionally with many EEC documents. I soon learned to appreciate that perhaps the Anglo-Saxon approach to legal regulations, as to their substance and interpretation, is not always the most helpful and effective or attractive way to approach these matters in this technological age. I also appreciated that perhaps we have a lot to learn from the often experimental and certainly modernistic approach which is made to these matters by Continental lawyers and legal draftsmen.
May I, in conclusion, take this opportunity of congratulating Lord Diamond's successor, the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, on her appointment. Her success will be inevitable, and I hope that this work will bring her great interest and happiness.
5.34 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to every noble Lord who has been good enough to wish me well in this very difficult task that I have undertaken in following the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I have already found out from previous experience his enormous capacity for work and his exact mind, and he has on so many occasions served this House well. I

635
have listened to this debate with the very greatest interest. I should like to say to all noble Lords who have spoken that I will study again what they have said, because I feel that it is both wise and constructive advice.
I know very well that this Committee cannot be a success without the enormous work which is undertaken by the chairmen of the sub-committees, and also by those who are co-opted to them, and it is only with the help of your Lordships' House that I will be able to undertake this task. I would only say that I feel it a great honour to have the opportunity to serve the House in this way. I thank your Lordships for your good wishes and I hope, with the noble Lord. Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that I shall have the luck as well.
5.35 p.m.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, this is the first time this House has debated a Report of this European Communities Committee which has been in existence since May. The Committee is indeed to be warmly congratulated on the Report and on the encouraging picture which it gives of its activities to date. In its brief life the Committee has completed consideration of 347 proposals and has started consideration of 63 more. It is very encouraging that the Committee should already be in a position to say that the number of proposals awaiting consideration is not an unmanageable one. Its regular reports have brought a variety of proposals to the special attention of the House, together with very useful comments. Very great credit, of course, is due to the members of the Committee, those who have been full voting members of the Committee and sub-committees, and indeed those who have attended, and sat in, even though they had no voting powers; the value of their service is not to be minimised because, for reasons that we all understand, they cannot share with the other members the right to vote.
But our particular thanks and congratulations must go, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for this very happy result. It is with very real regret that we allow him to give up the leadership of this Committee, which he has got off to such a splendid start. However, we are all delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie,
636
has accepted this important role. It must be reassuring, not only to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, but to the whole House, that one of her great Parliamentary and administrative skills and experience should now undertake this truly vital work. We are grateful to her. We wish her well. We know she will serve this House and this country, as always, with grace and distinction, and for my part I can assure her that Her Majesty's Government and indeed my noble friend the Leader of the House will be more than ready to co-operate with her in her task.
It is a major aim of Her Majesty s Government to ensure not only that British interests are fully reflected in all decisions reached in Brussels, but also that the views of Parliament, as representing the people, can be brought to bear before British Ministers subscribe to those decisions. We regard this as an important aspect of Britain's relationship to the Community on which the people have a right to be reassured before they are asked to take the decision on the results of renegotiation. They need to know that there cannot be what my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary so aptly described as an involuntary loss of sovereignty.
We seek to ensure a double safeguard against this danger. The first lies in the Council itself, where British Ministers defend our interests. To those who are doubtful of membership of the Community, may I emphasise that no piece of Community legislation, or for that matter any other important Council decision, can be agreed without the assent of the British Government. This is the meaning of the Luxembourg Agreement. Her Majesty's Government are, and will make sure they remain, in a position to see that nothing is agreed that would conflict with the essential interest of this country. This, of course, is the view of the other members of the Community. That is the first safeguard.
The second one is that we provide here for democratic control. It is here, in Parliament, that the Government place such importance on the role of the European Committees—the Scrutiny Committees, as they have been called by many noble Lords who have taken part this afternoon—in enabling Parliament to bring its influence to bear on Ministers. Here Lord Inglewood's point that the

637
reports, and the outcome of the debates on the Floor of the House, should be brought to the effective attention of Ministers, who then proceed in due course to Brussels to speak and to decide for us, is of paramount importance.
It would clearly be impossible for Parliament to examine every piece of Community legislation affecting this country, however short lived or trivial. A great mass of this paper is concerned with quite small and even ephemeral matters, but it is crucial that the views of Parliament should be brought to bear on proposals of significance. This is where the procedures and processes invented and promoted by my noble friend Lord Diamond have so signally served this purpose, and this country, in that it does seem, does it not?, that he and his Committee have hit on the right way, through the sifting process, to identify the matters which are of such significance that they should in due course be discussed by Parliament.
It is the task of the European Communities Committee to draw to the attention of the House all such proposals. As one noble Lord said, this work cannot be skimped. It has not been skimped, but in dealing with this important matter carefully and in detail they, and we, run up against the question of availability of time on the Floor of the House to discuss and debate those proposals. We must see how we get on. We have indicated from this Box, and in another place, how ready the Government are to help to provide the time for these discussions. I personally would like to reinforce that. We must all co-operate to ensure that this House finds the time to discuss proposals of significance which the Committee and its subcommittees suggest to the House. A number of noble Lords suggested that sub-committees might do this (I am not going to prejudge the decision of the next chairman, of course) without recourse to the parent Committee. We must cooperate on this. It is vital that proposals of significance should have time found for them to be properly debated in this House.
I think that we were all glad to read the kind words in the Committee's Report about the help that they had received from the Government and from Departments. I particularly appreciated what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said in this
638
connection. I can testify—and I am sure that the new chairman of the Scrutiny Committee would join me in this—to the extraordinary dedication of our civil servants, not least those of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in regard to this important work. They are tireless, and indeed I believe they are the best in the world. They are objective, and at all times ready to respond to requests for assistance, guidance, and information.
It has indeed been the aim of the Government to give the Committee full assistance in its important role, and I think that we can fairly claim to have done this. I can also say that we shall continue to do it, because it is part of our intention that the work of this Committee should effectively be taken on to the Floor of Parliament, and in due course find expression in what we have to say in international gatherings outside this country.
In the first place we make sure that all Commission proposals for Community legislation are sent to Parliament within two working days of their receipt in London. We also send, with the minimum of delay, a wide range of other documents issued by the Commission—reports on the situation in the Community, and general policy papers setting out Commission thinking on certain topics. I can well understand the somewhat rueful comments which have been made this afternoon about the volume of paper involved. My point here is that within two days of the receipt of Community legislation in this country it is on its way to Parliament.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: Proposed legislation.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: And we endeavour also to be as expeditious as possible in regard to the non-legislative reports—indeed interim assessments—which the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, reminded us form a very important part of the work of the Commission, and therefore of our work here. In order to help the committees digest all this information, Departments provide an explanatory memorandum for each document. This memorandum is prepared by the responsible Department in the form recommended by Parliament, and is signed by the responsible Minister. This is the first link we have set up between the Government and the committees.

639
It has been a major effort for Whitehall Departments to provide these memoranda, usually within the target of two weeks of receipt in London of the document concerned; that is, we aim to make available the explanatory memoranda within two weeks of the receipt of the document concerned. Equally, we stand ready to give the committees further information about any particular proposal in which they express interest. On occasions, as we have heard this afternoon and read in the Report, this has taken the form of further written information. But the Special Report also makes clear that officials and, on occasions, Ministers, have also been ready to come before the Committee in person. I should add that there is absolutely no limit to the readiness of Ministers to attend in person meetings of this Committee.
To help the committees decide the priority they should give to the documents before them, the Government provide a monthly written forecast of business which is expected to come before the Council for Ministerial decision in the following month. Noble Lords will have seen in Tuesday's Hansard a Statement made by my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe which is an example of this kind of information: a forecast of the business, with dates as to when the specific Councils—foreign affairs, agriculture and so on—will meet during the following month. We shall also continue the practice, introduced at the end of the last Parliament, of accompanying this by a monthly Ministerial Statement. Sometimes there will be a composite statement giving the projected timetable as well as the Ministerial comment upon it.
It is indeed good to know that these arrangements have been appreciated by the Committee. As my noble friend Lord Diamond knows, he has been most welcome at any time to discuss with myself or my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office any problems which may arise in his Committee's work. The same will be equally true, as I said, of his successor. My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has a special responsibility for co-ordinating the Government's relations with the Committees in both House, a
640
role to which he attaches great importance.
I look forward to a series of debates during the coming months on items that your Committee has singled out as raising important matters of policy or principle to which the special attention of the House should be drawn. We shall in fact be having the first two debates of this kind this very evening. If our system of Parliamentary scrutiny is to be effective, it is clearly of considerable importance that when the Committee reports on a particular proposal as raising matters which require the special attention of the House an early opportunity should be found for debate. This was stressed by a number of noble Lords, among them my noble friend Lord O'Hagan. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor—if I may say so without presumption—made a speech which contained a great deal which I and other Members of the House will wish to ponder very carefully when we read it in Hansard to-morrow. He stressed that perhaps the only flaw, if flaw it is, in our arrangements so far, is how to make sure that the Committee's valuable work is not nullified, first, by the lack of an early enough opportunity for discussion in this House; and, secondly, nullified because it has not meaningfully been placed in the possession of Ministers as they proceed to decision in Brussels. This is a central and important point about which we must all think carefully.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me? I wonder whether I may put this point to him. It is a point that I think troubled the Committee. At this time of the year there should not be any great difficulty in bringing to the early attention of the House and getting an early debate on matters that are important, but the timetable of the Council is different from the timetable of the Houses of Parliament, and it may prove very difficult towards the end of the Parliamentary Session to get time for matters that may be urgent and may require decision before the House resumes. I wonder whether the noble Lord could give special consideration to that point.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: Indeed I will; I have been seized for some time with the peculiar difficulty of the incidence of time and distance which

641
arises in the case of both Houses. The noble Lord and I have experience of the other place as well. Then there is the dichotomy between our own Parliamentary timetable and what happens in Brussels—that is, the timetable of the Council. August does not mean quite the same thing in Europe as it does in this country. There must be greater harmonisation of timetables as between Europe and ourselves. There is this disparity of pace and of occasion, and it can create very great difficulty. This I would say: if towards the end of a Session it is seen that an important decision in Brussels cannot be taken with the advantage of its having been debated in Parliament here, then special measures should in my view be taken to see that the relationship is corrected. I take the noble Lord's point very fully and I believe that the Government are seized of its importance.
We also recognise that if the views of Parliament are to have their proper weight in the overall decision-making processes of the Community, not only should such debates take place before final decisions are taken in the Council of Ministers, but also the arrangements for debates should be such as to make it possible for both Houses to have been able to express a view before decisions are taken. I have some reservation, and I join here with one or two noble Lords who have canvassed the possibility of relating the work of both Houses in such a way that there is less overlapping in the light of experience. Possibly—I am offering a purely personal view now as I am entitled to do on a procedural debate of this kind (I do not always have to talk as a Minister) I can speak as a Member of this House—debates, at least on certain categories of matters, should not have to proceed in both Houses. We have already sequestrated the financial issues to the other place so that we in this House are not obliged, indeed as a result of the deliberations of the Scrutiny Committee we do not intend, to discuss those matters. There is room here perhaps for further rationalisation—I tread very warily; I do not for a moment wish to indicate to another place what it should do—but I think we are all entitled to throw out ideas about further efforts at rationalisation in the future.
Of course debates on reports of the Committee will not be the only way in
642
which we shall be able to express views on Community matters. There will also be opportunities provided by other debates on the general range or particular aspects of Community matters. There will continue to be other normal procedural opportunities, such as Questions by which Ministers are held accountable to Parliament.
There will also be made to Parliament twice a year a general report on developments in Community matters. The Government share the view expressed in the Special Report that these could provide a useful opportunity for a general debate on EEC matters at which consideration could also be given to the work of our Committee. The Committee's remarks in the final paragraph of their Report, that the time may come when the European Assembly is in a position to discharge the responsibilities which are at present those of this Committee, deserve attention and thought. We had a most stimulating debate about the European Assembly in this House on June 25 when a Bill on direct elections introduced by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, was discussed. I think everybody will agree that the Assembly has not developed far enough to fill the democratic gap which faces the Community now and that national Parliaments have an indispensable and essential role for the foreseeable future.
This has been an extremely useful debate. I think it is one of those debates which pre-eminently will lend itself to re-reading in Hansard and further consideration in cold print. But every speech I have heard to-day has been made by noble Lords who know the area. The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, for instance, has already made a notable contribution in hard practical study of the question of direct elections, something that has to be done before we start translating any idealistic theories into practice. Other noble Lords have indicated through their own special expertise how the procedures of the Committee may be further strengthened. For instance, the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, was of that order.
I find it difficult to pick my favourite points from what has been said this afternoon and to address myself to them specifically. This debate is valuable as

643
a whole. I have no doubt that the new Chairman will herself wish to study what has been said to-day. It has been a debate brimful of highly important suggestions, many of them, I believe, susceptible at least of experimentation; but here one does not wish to intrude upon the prerogative of the new Chairman to study and decide for herself how far and how fast a number of these suggestions may be implemented.
The second aspect of the debate has been the kind of question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, who referred to what, constitutionally speaking, I would call the hierarchical organisation of the European system. My noble friend Lord O'Hagan also referred to this matter as did others. There is the Summit, which is, of course, a negotiating body. There is the Council, which is a meeting of Ministers with powers. There is the Commission, which is not only below but rather to the side of the Council of Ministers in that it is substantially a non-Parliamentary agency. Then, of course, there are the national Parliaments and (who knows?) there may be some relativity to the newer Regional Assemblies which this country and others may be inventing in due course. It will be an interesting life at all levels.
The debate has given us all food for thought about the future of the Committee. It has also called our attention to fundamental questions relating to the constitutional future of Europe. I do not think we ought to be in too great a hurry to solve so massive and complex a question as the constitutional structure of any regional arrangement in Europe. That is my view. Hard work and hard thought must proceed on the kind of structure which we think will fit a viable and acceptable Europe.
Well, it is debates like this in which we find suggestions, criticisms and, above all, a readiness to exchange views and ideas, which will help us on our way. I repeat that I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Diamond for having made it possible for us to have such a very useful debate. I look forward very much to the contribution which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, will make in due course.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am sure at this hour that even those Lords
644
who have addressed very specific questions to me would not wish that the House should be detained by a detailed response to all of them. However, may I say that every member of my Committee who sat in the last Session will share with me the view that we are indeed indebted to the House for the splendid way in which it has received our Report. It is most encouraging. To the Minister may I say how glad I was to hear him remark that by co-operation all round, time must be found for debates. I am sure the key is that if we all bear in mind that there is need to slot in time for debates of this kind then time will be found, as indeed it must. The noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, has said that she will think carefully about all the suggestions which have been made and which are for her and the future Committee to decide upon.
May I mention one or two points of interest which have been raised in important speeches on the past. First, yes, there has been a system of direct reporting by sub-committees so as not to hold up the work of Parliament, by the simple procedure of a sub-committee submitting its Report to the Chairman of the main Committee and that Chairman, by authority of the Committee, having the responsibility of issuing the Report, if he thinks fit and if he considers it is urgent enough. That has happened on more than one occasion. Secondly, although there has been some difference between an estimated 5 per cent. and an eventual 30 per cent. it would not, I am sure as a member of the previous two Committees, have made any difference to our conclusions had we thought it might be 30 per cent. or 5 per cent. The important point is that we are working on those proposals in ways which are turning out to be effective and capable of handling the number which have to be reported on and examined, be they 5 per cent. or 30 per cent.
The question of publicity and the members of the European Parliament—and members of the public as a whole being made aware of what is going on and when—engaged the minds of the Committee early on. We are back to the same problem of printing. The second Report which was printed on June 12 and which was brought out just before the printing

645
delays started, referred to this matter in two paragraphs, one of which—Paragraph 7—stated:
"Further details of the agenda, time and place of the meeting of the Sub-Committees will be circulated in the fortnightly report from the main Committee, in which the division of all proposals between A and B lists will be recorded."
Under the heading of "Publicity of Proceedings" at Paragraph 17 it stated:
"A list of all current Community proposals to be considered by the European Communities Committee and its sub-committees will be appended to the fortnightly Report of the main committee. This will indicate to Members of the House and to the public which proposals are to be considered by the Committee and its sub-committees."
So this was a point which was well made, well taken and would have been well understood by Members of your Lordships' House had we not had the printing difficulties.
My Lords, I conclude on one simple note. I am sure we all understand that these arrangements are to enable this democratic gap to be filled until a European Parliament can carry out a full democratic function as we understand it. Nevertheless in the meantime it is important for us to be able to demonstrate that there is nothing inconsistent between democratic control, as we understand it in this country, and the functioning of the Community as it exists at present. It is my hope that the House has been satisfied by our Report that this is the case..
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE
6.10 p.m
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION rose to move, That this House takes note of the Tenth Report of the Select Committee (Session 1974) on the future sugar policy of the Communities (R/1900/73 and R/1957/ 74). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think I should explain at the outset that it falls to my lot to move the Motion on the future sugar policy of the Communities, because I was the chairman of the sub-committee that presented the report which was adopted by the main Committee and which is before the House to-day. In accordance with the traditions of the House, I declared to the sub-committee the fact that I have a pecuniary
646
interest in the British Sugar Corporation, and I now declare it to the House. It is a small one, but nevertheless I must declare it. Although I realise that such a Motion as I am now moving is a peg upon which to hang a very wide debate on the sugar problem, I conceive it as my task to stick fairly closely to the report itself, leaving it to other noble Lords to discuss the wider aspects and to my noble friend Lord Beswick to tell us of the present position and to answer for the Minister of Agriculture.
My Lords, the report attempted to achieve the virtually impossible: that is, to set out the general effect of the proposals in some six paragraphs, and this meant boiling down some twenty pages of closely-typed material into that small compass. Clearly, much detail had to be omitted, but anyone particularly interested can of course get the full documents from the Printed Paper Office; they are, in fact, available there. All I can hope is that what we have included in that report makes sense, that it is in no way a distortion of the policy, and that there is enough information to enable the House to decide whether or not to note the report. Perhaps I ought to add that, by our debating the report to-day, the Minister will be made aware of the views expressed in this House when he participates in the discussions at the EEC Council meeting on the 18th and 19th of this month.
The sub-committee had before them two memoranda dealing with the future sugar policy of the EEC, the first dated July 13, 1973, and the second dated July, 1974, the latter embodying some necessary amendments which were caused by the course of events during the year between the two memoranda. That policy can be set out under three heads: first, the EEC position in relation to any negotiations that might take place for a revival in some form of the International Sugar Agreement; secondly, the obligation of the Community towards the developing countries; and, thirdly, the Community's own internal arrangements for the five years from the marketing year 1975–76. The International Sugar Agreement expired on December 31, 1973, and the Community clearly has to decide whether it will participate in the United Nations Conference which is intended to try to bring into being a new international

647
agreement on sugar; and, if it does so decide, what will be its stance at any negotiations that have to take place.
Perhaps I ought, very briefly, to remind the House of what the International Sugar Agreement was intended to achieve. That Agreement, signed by the United Kingdom in 1968, came into force in 1969 and it sought to bring about a measure of stability in the international market for sugar. The Agreement was slanted towards raising the level of international trade, mainly, I stress, to increase the export earnings of developing countries. To achieve that end sugar prices were to be maintained at a level which, while reasonably remunerative to producers everywhere, would not encourage further expansion in the developed countries, such as ours. At the time of the Agreement, most of the world's sugar was sold under agreements such as the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, and only a comparatively small proportion of the sugar produced anywhere entered into the world market. This led to such a degree of instability that, on that market, prices fluctuated wildly between £12 and £100 a ton, but the mainly prevailing low prices during this period caused a worldwide neglect of the sugar cane industry. Production fell, and world shortages brought about an increase in the price on the free market to, eventually, the present level of what I believe to be £400 a ton, with futures quoted at £500 a ton. Under the stresses brought about by the world demand exceeding supply, the International Sugar Agreement inevitably broke down, and up to now has not been renewed.
The proposals in the memoranda are that the Community should join a new international sugar agreement as a net importer of sugar, and in the context of such an agreement it would undertake to limit its exports of white sugar to the world market to the level of 800,000 tons, with a proviso that in times of world shortage the Community could export without quantitative limitation. Perhaps I should explain that the Community-would be a net importer of sugar because of its intention to import 1·4 million tons from the developing countries; so your Lordships see where the net importation will take place. That import would come under the accepted obligation of the Community towards the developing countries.
648
Those countries are mainly those which were parties to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, under which Britain guaranteed to buy sugar at an agreed price from specified countries of the Commonwealth; and also included in the term "developing countries" are the associate countries of the other members of the Community.
My Lords, the arrangements for these imports would fall to be negotiated within the framework of Protocol 22 of the Act of Accession. Under the arrangements the Community would undertake to purchase the 1·4 million tons at a price no higher than the lowest Community price, so that Community producers would be no worse off than producers in the developing countries; and in return for such a guarantee the developing countries would be expected to guarantee to deliver the agreed tonnages to the Community. Of imports into the EEC of the raw cane sugar, 85 to 90 per cent. would be allocated on a quota basis among the specialised refineries; that is, those port refineries which have traditionally refined raw cane rather than beet sugar.
Under the third head—the Community's own internal arrangements for the production of sugar beet—the existing production régime would be continued for five years from the marketing year 1975–76. That régime can be summarised as a continuation of the allocation of quotas for each enterprise producing sugar from Community-grown beet; this with a price system designed to ensure some production in areas unsuited to the best beet sugar cultivation—this for social reasons—and to encourage some production above the basic quota in the areas best suited to beet growing, but at a lower price. On the Community's proposals the sub-committee had to give its opinion and make such recommendations as it thought fit. We had to take our decisions on August 20, which is now a long time ago in terms of sugar movement, in the light of the evidence we had taken and in the light of the prevailing circumstances.
The terms of reference of the EEC Committee say that it must make representations on the matters it has considered which
"… raise important questions of policy or principle and on other questions to which the Committee consider that the special attention of the House should be drawn."

649
Clearly, my Lords, within those terms, the Committee must decide whether the Community's proposals are to be viewed from the wide, European point of view or from a more parochial, national standpoint. We tried to achieve a balance between the two and I hope that we succeeded, because I agree with those noble Lords who participated in the previous debate this afternoon that we have to consider both points of view when thinking in terms of what is being said to us from the EEC.
We were of the opinion, from the Community angle, as we said in our report, that the proposals in the memorandum provide a satisfactory framework within which negotiations between agricultural Ministers may take place; and, in particular, provide a reasonable basis for negotiations on a possible reincarnation of an International Sugar Agreement. They would provide, too, we say, for the future production of adequate supplies of sugar, which I hope is an assurance that will meet with the good wishes and acceptance of this House. We were also of the opinion that the price structure ought to continue to maintain the sugar beet industry in the Community, as well as supporting cane sugar production in some of the developing countries.
From our national angle, we were very critical of the proposal to fix quotas on the basis of a producers' total average production between 1968 and 1973, for the reason, which we gave, that our own sugar producers' share was restricted during that period by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. That Agreement made the provision that we would restrict our production to ensure that we could take the agreed production of our Commonwealth. We also had doubts about the proposed allocation of imported raw sugar to the specialised refineries. In this matter, our comment might have been very much stronger, except that we were by no means clear what exactly was meant by the phrase which appeared in the memorandum. I will not repeat it, but it was not clear enough for us to take a firm decision on it. Having regard to the very vulnerable position of our refiners—and we are hearing a great deal about this at present—we believe that the Minister himself must carefully explore the words that appear in the memorandum
650
when he considers this policy, and perhaps take a very firm stand to ensure that our refiners do not suffer from neglect as a result of decisions by the EEC.
My Lords, we made other criticisms, but the unfairness of the quota basis to the United Kingdom producer was certainly the one to which we wish to bring the special attention of the House and the Minister of Agriculture. After rereading our report, I do not think that any of our comments or recommendations have been invalidated by subsequent events, except that our main critcism that the quota basis was unfair to the United Kingdom was met by the EEC Council of Agricultural Ministers when it met on October 21. I am glad to say that the United Kingdom now has a very generous allocation.
I hope it can be claimed for the subcommittee that our criticisms helped the Minister to put right an obvious injustice. As has been said this afternoon, it is not only what this House thinks as a House when it discusses matters that is important. I believe that it is also important that the decisions taken by the main Committee on the recommendation of the subcommittee help the Minister to make up his mind and to fight, if necessary, in the Council of Ministers. This is the first of the reports of the Committee, which has emanated from a sub-committee, to be considered by the House and I hope that it is in substance, form and manner, such as meets with your Lordships' approval.
My Lords, may I end by thanking the members of my sub-committee for their co-operation and assistance, as also the clerks who served the Committee. I must, too, add my meed of praise for the work of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, as Chairman of the main Committee. As everyone has done this afternoon, I wish the noble Baroness—his successor—all that she can possibly wish herself. I would only on my own behalf apologise for the fact that my personal circumstances mean that I shall not be there to help her, but I shall certainly be watching everything she does and hoping that everything goes right. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Tenth Report of the Select Committee (Session 1974) on the future sugar policy

651
of the Communities (R/1900/73 and R/1957/74).—[Lord Champion.]
6.27 p.m.
LORD SAINT OSWALD: My Lords, this Report appeared on August 29, which is not far away, but a good deal has happened since then to affect the situation. There is what could be called a sugar crisis created by those events, though the noble Lord, Lord Champion, referred to it as a sugar problem in his deliberate, thoughtful exposé of the Report. His was a speech which gave an admirable background to far more general speeches than I shall be making. This is an occasion which entails a need for urgency and also a need to tread delicately. It is not, therefore, an easy, straightforward debate in which to take part, yet as a member not only of the European Parliament but of the Agricultural Committee of that Parliament, it would hardly be proper for me to sit by silently this evening.
Yesterday, it had been my firm intention to join in the general agricultural debate, but I was struck down by some wandering virus and forced to spend the day, reluctantly and fumingly, in bed. Had I spoken, my words would have been in total agreement with those which my noble friend and European colleague, Lord Mansfield, spoke in that passage of his speech in the debate on the gracious Speech when he referred to the Common Market and, in particular, to agriculture. The urgency of this situation is partly created by the fact that beet farmers in this and other countries of the Community are about to sign their contracts for next season's sowing, and they need to know what prices to expect before deciding on what acreage they can afford to devote to this crop.
With the profit and loss margins—all too often loss—as they are to-day, farmers are required to make fine judgments and to make them in time. I speak as a farmer and as a beet farmer on a moderate scale. The urgency is evident to many; the delicacy is not so evident. This debate is about consumption and supply and, with regard to supply, there are a number of options. Negotiations within the Community are in progress and our country is part of them, and those negotiations could be upset or inhibited by an unwise word inside or outside Parliament.
652
Mr. Peart has a difficult task. Neither as Minister nor as friend (as he has more than once shown himself to be) would I wish his task to be harder. For this reason I have eliminated from my remarks to-day anything which could, even mistakenly, be taken as controversial. It is also more proper, in my view, to inform the House that if I am to show even the semblance of good manners towards the next place in which I am expected, I shall unfortunately have to leave before the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, winds up the debate. I must therefore beg his forgiveness in this respect.
This self-denial on my part does not make for a truly robust speech, but I hope I can carry into this House some of the measured and fundamental confidence which I feel myself. During Monday and Tuesday of this week I spoke in the Agricultural Committee in Brussels, and the spirit which governed those discussions (which I find is normally the case) was one of co-operation—which did not prevent special interests being deployed where they could be shown and accepted as genuine and reasonable. As an instance, I felt free, when the question of national quotas of beet was being debated—quotas based on the 1968–69 and 1972–73 crops—to point out, as did the noble Lord, Lord Champion, a minute or two ago, that this did not constitute for Britain an entirely satisfactory or even fair base.
The reason, as we said, was perfectly honourable in that our domestic crop had been restricted for a considerable period to enable us to fulfil our obligations under the Common Market Sugar Agreement. This was accepted in spirit clearly and explicitly by the Committee, and I think it may be reflected in future quotas. If it is, I have no doubt that more thanks will be owed to the influence of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, than to my own. On the other hand, I also stressed the essential need of the sugar-producing countries of the Commonwealth. I did this more for the sake of the Record than in argument, because there is a full recognition of this requirement within the Community.
The two Commissioners most closely concerned are Mr. Pierre Lardinois and Mr. Claude Cheysson. Having listened to and conversed with Mr. Lardinois over

653
the past 19 months, I am aware, as we all are in the work of the Community, how deeply pledged he is to the honouring of Protocol 22 of the Treaty of Accession—that part which gave reassurance to those Commonwealth countries. Mr. Cheysson, who deals with matters concerning developing countries as a whole, is totally dedicated to their interests and to ensuring that the Community's duties are fulfilled to the maximum extent. Neither of these, as my noble friend, Lord Chelwood said in an earlier debate, could possibly be accounted "faceless", still less "soulless".
Knowing this as I do, I have been taken aback, especially during the last 36 hours, by so many constant declarations of mistrust in the intentions of the Community towards those countries and the constant reiterance that "nothing is signed". It is true enough that nothing is signed, but the Commission are negotiating on the basis of a continuance of the 1.4 million tons to be imported in the course of next year from the Commonwealth countries. This was made clear in July, 1973, and it has not been changed as an intention. The doubt lies not in the willingness of the Community to maintain the quota, but in the ability of the developing countries to fulfil it. It will be remembered that they failed by over 300,000 tons to fulfil it in the year just ended. However, it seems to me that it would be fatal at this juncture to juggle with possible figures, proportions and statistics, because these make a great deal of difference to the life of every individual in this country.
I have heard it stated, formidably enough, that the Community is unlikely to obtain more than a million tons of raw sugar from the Commonwealth countries, at the most. I have heard an estimate which brings the figure down to 600.000 tons. The fact is that we do not know: quantities and prices are still being negotiated. The aim of the Commission, in the face of what is recognised as an almost certainly serious sugar deficit, is that this deficit should be shared.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, as the noble Lord will not be here, as he said, when I wind up, I wonder whether I might ask him this. He told us that he has
654
put forward a case and is satisfied about the argument on price and quantity. But what about the duration of contract?
LORD SAINT OSWALD: My Lords, this is all being negotiated, as the noble Lord well knows. But what I am saying is that the will is there on the part of the Community. I must not claim too much for myself. This was pushing at an open door in the Agricultural Committee. I am not claiming that my eloquence has affected anybody's views.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, am I to understand that the noble Lord's judgment is that the will is there on the part of the Community to enter into a long-term contract?
LORD SAINT OSWALD: My Lords, that is certainly the wish of the Community and it is backed up by the will of the Community. But the negotiations are still in progress and nobody—not even the noble Lord and, still less, I myself—can say what will emerge from these negotiations, because the negotiations are rendered more difficult by the present uncertainty which hangs over the duration of our membership of the Community. However, that is a matter that I do not wish to press this evening.
I have said that the aim is that this Community deficit should be shared; that is, that the "have-somes" should share with the "have-lesses". As Britain in the coming year will be the member of the Community with the most serious deficit—more than Italy and far more than the slight shortfall expected by Ireland—this represents a positive and immediate advantage for our coutry. What is most fortifying, if it can be maintained, is the good will which exists within the Community and which has practical expression, as I see it, in cases such as this. Long may that good will embrace our country, and long may it find a response.
6.39 p.m.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, I should first declare an interest in that I am an adviser to a firm of retail distributors selling sugar. But I can assure your Lordships that this gives me no privileged or special position in regard to the purchase of a very scarce commodity. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Champion and his colleagues

655
on the thoroughness and deep thought that they gave to the problems which they had to consider. I am sure they will not mind my saying that the Report has been largely overtaken by events.
I should also like to say at this point that I shall be controversial and therefore will not be able to follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Saint Oswald. I think that the position is so serious that it would be very hard to avoid being controversial. To talk of quotas, to talk of surpluses, in a situation of acute world shortages seems to me unreal. The fear of these shortages is indicated by the sugar futures market. December sugar was well above the figure mentioned by my noble friend Lord Champion. The top price of December sugar was £650 a ton yesterday. I do not for one moment claim to be an expert but I foresee a serious shortage of sugar during at least the first half of next year, and that fear is reflected in the market.
As I said in the speech that I made in the debate on the gracious Speech, Commonwealth sugar producers are no longer so dependent on sales to Great Britain. They have concluded sales with China, Venezuala, North Africa and North America. Not only has the situation of supply been serious through 1974, but the 1975 supplies are threatened by the current difficulties in the harvesting of European beet because of weather conditions. This bad weather for harvesting is also being experienced in the Eastern European bloc. They are already putting out feelers for sugar supplies in addition to the existing arrangements with Cuba. So in my opinion this all underlines the seriousness of the world supply of sugar for next year.
I very reluctantly criticise the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I had a happy relationship with that Ministry over many years during the last war and immediately afterwards, as one of their retail advisers. But I say this definitely: the Ministry have been over-optimistic during 1974 that the sugar shortage in the retail shops in this country was going to be overcome within a matter of weeks. The sugar shortage, which practically every housewife in England can confirm, is still with us. The sugar shortage was created, according to Ministry statements, by panic buying and
656
hoarding. Every housewife would say that they got it the wrong way round. The panic buying and hoarding—if there was any in any great way—was created by the shortage. They are optimistic about the prospects in 1975. In the opinion of experts, as I have already said, there is a danger of a real shortage of sugar in this country next year.
What is the Ministry going to do? It is not sufficient to say that during the course of one season you have as much sugar as in the previous season because anybody engaged in food distribution, with the movement of population during holiday times, et cetera, knows that unless you are going to have local shortages which start the run on sugar, you must have 100 per cent. plus and not 100 per cent. of the supplies that you had during the previous period. I cannot help feeling, as one who has repeatedly indicated in your Lordships' House his support for British membership of the European Economic Community, that it would have been very much more fortunate had the Minister of Agriculture been able to deal direct with the Commonwealth producers independent of the quotas and complex price arrangements by which we are bound.
However, other methods of coping with the shortage have to be found. Nobody wants rationing, especially in peacetime; but, going back to the lessons that some of us learned in the early days of the last war, it is essential to start rationing before the shortages arrive and not afterwards. I hope that in this very difficult situation that faces the Government, and particularly the Ministry of Agriculture, at the present time they will bear this in mind.
6.38 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said that he was going to be controversial. I did not think he was controversial. I thought he spoke in exactly the way he thought, which was certainly of very great interest. We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for having introduced the Report and for referring to the draft European Instruments to which it refers. They are indeed extremely important. It is our relationship with the European Community, both present and future, which has become so important of late,

657
particularly for the supplies of sugar, and I want to use this opportunity mostly to ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to clarify certain points.
I had a certain amount to say yesterday about sugar. As I explained then, the Minister is on a tight rope; he has to keep the refineries going, he has his obligations to the European Community, and he has to keep adequate supplies in the shops. All this is made worse by the fact that our Commonwealth Sugar Agreement comes to an end and the new Community agreements have to be started up at a time of a world sugar shortage. Therefore, it is very easy to try to blame either the European Community or the ending of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, when in fact a great deal of the trouble does not relate to either of those but to the world trade situation.
I do not want to embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, either. On the other hand, sugar is important and many words have been spoken about it, some doubtless accurate and some doubtless less accurate. I want to take this opportunity of asking him to be kind enough to clarify some of the points which are in doubt. The concern is really threefold. First, there is the shortage of sugar in the shops. That is of major public concern. Secondly, the refiners are concerned that they will not have enough sugar to keep refineries going after the end of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. The Agreement ends on December 31 and the supplies end in February. The third concern is where we are going to get our supplies from to fill our needs next year.
To take the first point, there is immediate concern about supplies of sugar in the shops. We hear of children being sent out and told not to come home until they have bought some sugar. We hear of sugar being sold in some shops only to people who have been prepared to purchase a pound's worth of goods—and that bears hardly on the old-age pensioners. We have the Christmas demand coming up, and of course when there is a shortage of sugar there comes a shortage of golden syrup. I would ask the noble Lord this question: Do the Government believe that stocks are adequate in this country at the moment, and if they are, why is is that they cannot be purchased? Can the Government give any assurance that there are adequate stocks
658
and supplies to fill the needs of both housewives and manufacturing industries, especially at this time of the year when everyone is buying for the Christmas trade?
With regard to the second point, refiners have traditionally refined from the 1·7 million tons which have been supplied under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement—1·4 million tons came from the Caribbean, and the other 300,000 tons came from Australia. We know that the 300,000 tons from Australia will not be forthcoming in future. But I think that what concerns the refiners is whether they will be able to obtain the 1·4 million tons from the Commonwealth Caribbean countries. Originally the doubt was whether the European Community would accept the 1·4 million tons, and great concern was expressed at the time because of our relationship with the Caribbean countries and about how we should press for this amount still to go through the Community. We got the famous aura à coeur in the Treaty arrangements. But, of course, the difference is considerable because at that time the price to the Caribbean countries was something around £64 a ton when the world price was £40 a ton. Now the doubt is whether the Caribbean countries will, in fact, sell to the Community the 1·4 million tons, even if they are prepared to take it at anything like the price at which the Community is at the moment purchasing, which as I understand it from the document is about £140 a ton. My understanding is that of the 1·4 million tons originally sent to us, and which it is hoped we would still be able to get by their selling to the European Community, only about 600,000 tons can actually be relied upon to be sold to the Community at anything like the price which the Community is offering at the moment.
My questions are therefore these. Where are the refineries to get the sugar from after February of next year when the shipments cease? Have any contractual arrangements been entered into for the supply of sugar to our refineries next year? If no contractual arrangements have been made by now, how do the Government expect the refineries to be in business in February, as it leaves only two months to buy sugar, load it, ship it and get it into the pipeline? In the present state of the world market this

659
could prove to be an inadequate period, and it is certainly running things very fine indeed.
The third point relates to future supplies. The general impression when the Minister of Agriculture came back from Brussels was that the European Community had guaranteed to provide 200,000 tons of subsidised sugar to the United Kingdom. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, would clarify this very clearly, because my understanding is that the European Community have only guaranteed to earmark funds with which to subsidise 200,000 tons, but that companies in any member State of the European Community can bid for the subsidy. If that is so, then it is by no means assured that the United Kingdom will receive all of the subsidy or indeed any of it, or all of the sugar if there is any, or any of it. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would clarify that point, because it is an area of considerable misunderstanding. I would also ask him whether the 200,000 tons of sugar is physically there in the Community, or whether it is to be purchased on the world market, and also how the balance of the shortfall of our requirements is to be found—the balance of the shortfall is considerably more than 200,000 tons.
Am I also right in understanding that the subsidy is not to be paid for out of EEC funds direct, but is being paid for by selling forward on to the world market the anticipated surplus of next year's crop in the Community, which is not yet sown, and using the cash from that anticipated surplus to fund the subsidy? Is it a fact that the company, and indeed not the country, which purchases the sugar which is liable for subsidy has to fund the deal at world prices until the subsidy comes in from the Community? I am not criticising these arrangements; I am asking for clarification, because I think they are important. If during the current sugar year beginning in October of this year our requirements, both for what we consume and to replace our strategic stocks which have now been used up, are 2'9 million tons, am I right in believing that the only assured supplies are 600,000 tons from our current sugar beet crop and 600,000 tons from our Caribbean countries which used to supply under the
660
Commonwealth Sugar Agreement? If that is so, that leaves a deficit of 1·7 million tons of sugar to be filled. If the Caribbean countries supplied all the 1·4 million tons to the Community, that would leave a deficit of 0·9 million tons. Where is this to be purchased from? Will it be from the Community or the world market?
My Lords, this is largely a question of price. The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement comes to an end in December and it is all too easy to say, "If we weren't in the Community all we would do is to carry on with the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement." I do not think it would have been nearly as easy as that, because circumstances are wholly different from what they were when the original Commonwealth Sugar Agreement was made, when there was a world surplus of sugar, and when there is now a world shortage. But I hope that the Minister will do his best not only to persuade the Community to take all the 1·4 million tons, but also to persuade the Caribbean countries to sell to the Community the 1·4 million tons. The shortage points to what I was trying to say yesterday: that there really is a substantial argument for the increase of our own British agriculture, and in particular British sugar. However, I am glad that the Minister achieved this improved quota, because I think that it will make a great deal of difference. But if we are going to produce not 900,000 tons, which is our normal amount, but the 1,500,000 tons which we could produce under the joint A and B quotas arranged by the Minister, this will mean a considerable increase in acreage and we shall have to increase both slicing capacity and factory capacity.
My Lords, at the end of all this may I say that the most important point is the need to complete negotiations urgently, whether they are with the European Community, with the Caribbean countries, or with the refining companies. The Government have a direct responsibility here. They must ensure that in one way or another sufficient sugar stocks come to this country. It is inadequate for companies and countries not to know where their stocks will come from, and it is inadequate also for the British public to be unsure of whether they will get the sugar that they require. In the

661
profession of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, I think there is a saying that if you have stocks amounting to 995 per cent. of demand you have a shortage; and if you have a shortage you need 150 per cent. of your requirements for six weeks in order to overcome it. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will be able to clarify some of those points, about which I am certainly concerned.
7.2 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I join with those who have expressed their gratitude to my noble friend Lord Champion for the way in which he examined the sugar situation up to last August? I only wish that the clarity of that examination had been extended up to, say, half-past twelve to-day. Then, maybe, we could have saved the noble Earl from asking so many questions, because the Committee could possibly have explained it much more clearly than I can.
My Lords, may I comment first of all upon the three heads of policy implications on page 3 of the Report? The first is on imports of 1·4 million tons, and they should be metric tons of white sugar. The Government have re-affirmed this commitment to the developing Commonwealth, and have assured them that we shall seek a price of not less than £140 per ton f.o.b., the present price paid under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. This means a producer price of not less than this amount, to which has to be added the cost of freight and that of refining the raw sugar, which is about £50 per ton. We have emphasised the importance of an early decision on this question, and the urgency of it has been accepted by the Council. T hope that the necessary decisions will be taken at the November meetings, but this must mean that the Community is ready to be reasonably flexible about prices and other matters including, crucially, duration.
It is all very well giving a guarantee to developing countries that we shall accept 1·4 million tons, but of course they can sell those 1·4 million tons this year, and possibly next year, anywhere in the world market. What they are interested in, and what they were interested in before, is a guaranteed market over a period of years, and it is that stable market situation that we wrecked when we went into
662
the Community. Therefore duration is crucial to the decisions that will have to be taken.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain what he means when he says that that stable market situation was wrecked when we went into the Community, because the stability would have come to an end, anyhow, on December 31?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will remember that this was a revolving agreement. The whole point of it was that it was renegotiated every five or seven years. It was stable in the sense that we were sure of supplies. Of course there were times of shortages and times of surpluses, but they always knew how much they were going to get, and they always accepted the fact that, although they sold under the market price one year, they might be selling at over the market price the following year. This gave a stability which was very valuable and, which we have lost.
I do not want to become involved in an argument over this, although I should like to go into the situation; but that was a fact. The noble Lord said that there is no point in talking about the CSA; the CSA is a thing of the past. However, I am saying (hat if you want your 1·4 million tons from the Commonwealth countries now, it is not only a question of price; it is not only a question of amounts; it is a question of the assurances given over a period of years, and unless that is accepted nothing else will follow. This is a matter which will be very much to the forefront of the discussions which we shall have in Brussels.
Secondly, on the question of limiting Community exports, the internal needs of the Community must be the first priority. World prices and shortages mean that the present is hardly a propititious time for meaningful negotiations on regulating the world market. But when that time comes there is no reason why the Community should not be willing to accept the same obligations as other developed communities, should the need arise, since the Community system of quotas means that production can readily be controlled from, one year to another.

663
Thirdly, on the internal régime we have secured agreement to a substantial increase in our own beet quotas for internal consumption within the Community from a maximum of 990,000 tons to one of just over 1·5 million tons, all of which attracts the full guaranteed price. Thus, the element of discrimination against the new member States that was inherent in the Commission's original proposals has now been removed. We have also expressed our intention to move to full Community prices from January 1, 1975, as a further step to encourage farmers to sow this valuable crop. In these respects, therefore, substantial progress has been achieved since the Committee reported.
However, as I have indicated, much remains to be settled—not only the arrangements to be made with the developing producers, but also the detailed arrangements to ensure that the sugar can be bought and processed in the most efficient and economical way. This means that the cane refineries, particularly those in this country, can be certain that they will get cane sugar. Therefore we are determined to press at Brussels for a substantial proportion of these imports to be reserved for these refineries, as in the Commission's original proposals. This, we believe, is essential to protect employment and investment in this important industry which, unlike the beet industry, is geared to a continuous process of production.
My Lords, the question of the Community's scheme for subsidising 200,000 tons of imports from the world market was raised by the noble Earl, and he asked me what was the position. What we have secured is a commitment from the Council to take whatever steps are necessary to make good the Community's deficit in the coming year. The subsidy will have exactly the same claim on the Community's funds—that is on FEOCA—as any other item and there will be no fixed ceiling on expenditure.
The noble Earl asked about setting the loss of one year against the profits of the next. No doubt that will be a balancing factor, but the point is that the Community have agreed that the sugar can be bought in the world market at world market prices and made available to Community countries at Community prices.
664
This is an enormous guarantee and I can only assume that they understand what they have committed themselves to; but this is the way in which the Community are proposing to work. I have tried to understand the technical details with the aid of charts on a piece of paper; I think I possibly understand it, but I cannot hope to talk about it in this House, and in any case, as I have said, the details still have to be worked out. It is a novel and an experimental scheme and there will need to be considerable adjustments.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I am not quite clear what my noble friend means by "a noble and experimental scheme". When he was the Co-operative and Labour Member of Parliament for Uxbridge and I was the Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Agriculture I well remember the vigorous opposition he put up to our growing beet sugar in England, and I well remember on one particular occasion he said to me, "You can grow pineapples anywhere if you want to pay the money". Do I really understand that he is saying that the argument for the EEC is that even he, the ex-Co-operative and Labour Member of Parliament for Uxbridge, now accepts that there is a way by which our farmers can make a living?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I did not say it was a "noble" scheme; I said it was a novel and experimental scheme. I said that the details still had to be worked out and that I was not capable of explaining the possible details over the Floor of the House. But I should be very happy to have further discussions with the noble Earl about this.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord about just one point which is important. Am I right in believing that it is the subsidy which can be bid for by other members of the Community?—in other words, if they bid for it they will get the subsidy which will not come to Britain. Or is it a guarantee that we will have 200,000 tons, all of which will be subsidised to this country?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is not quite like that. Bidding does come into it but it is a bid by an importer. He may be of one nationality or of another; he may be a French importer who may

665
distribute the sugar in this country. It is a bid by an importer who then has to secure this amount of sugar in the world markets. If he can secure this amount of sugar in the world markets it does not matter what the price is; the Community is prepared to pay to him the difference between the world market price and the Community price. That is the way in which it is hoped the scheme will work out; but, as I have said, the details of this very complicated scheme still have to be decided.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, will my noble friend forgive me once more. He said he was willing to discuss this with the noble Earl opposite. But with great respect, is he willing to discuss it with some noble Lords on this side of the House as well? Some of us understand and know about it, and there is no very special reason why he should do it in a cosy way with the noble Earl opposite.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am quite prepared to discuss anything with my noble friend. All I am saying about the "nuts and bolts" of this subject is that they are very complicated, and if we are to have a proper and useful discussion on this, quite honestly I would prefer to have advisers with me. If my noble friend Lord George-Brown wants to come in on this I am quite happy to have him with us, but these are the "nuts and bolts" of the details of the machinery. So far as the principle is concerned, that is quite clear. The Community has said it is prepared to guarantee that the price that has to be paid in the world markets will be met by them as between the Community price and the world market price. The fact that these deals are done over a period of years and that next year there may be a lower price which would be offset against this year's higher price is a matter for very detailed arrangement, the details of which I find it difficult to put over on the Floor of the House. Does that satisfy the noble Lord?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but may I ask him one question. Is he now speaking about the period between the present and the time when the document we are now discussing will come into force? Is this an interim willingness to
666
guarantee the difference in price during that period? Is that right?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, this arrangement is in force and contracts are now being urgently sought. The machinery is now in operation. My noble friend Lord Sainsbury suggested that we were in error for not setting up the apparatus of rationing. Of course he is absolutely right when he says that the countries of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement are now no longer able to supply us with sugar because they have made contracts with the American continent. I accept that, but I must remind him that they have made these contracts with the American markets because the old traditional market here was not guaranteed and they were able to get these very high prices at the present time.
But that being so, and there being this abnormally high demand at the present time, does not necessarily mean that we should be justified in setting up the apparatus of rationing. The noble Lord says that if we are to stop panic buying we should have 110 per cent. of supplies. I am advised that since October in the United Kingdom there have indeed been 100 per cent. plus of available supplies. That is the situation, and one can say that rather than an absolute shortage there is an abnormally high demand, and if one of our most important refiners and if the adviser to one of our most important retailers paints a picture of shortage then of course little children will rush out to get supplies wherever they can and this abnormally high demand will be created.
But I must emphasise that the Community has committed itself to making good shortfalls in supplies by buying on the world market regardless of quantity and regardless of cost. This may not be the most sensible way of doing business, but that is the undertaking that they have given. Moreover, we have still to conclude negotiations with the Protocol 22 countries, supplies from which play such an important role in making up the total. Therefore the Government would not regard rationing as being appropriate in the present circumstances.
I understand that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary as well as my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture will be going to Brussels

667
to discuss these matters. The urgency emphasised quite rightly by the noble Earl is accepted by them. That sense of urgency in getting agreement in Brussels will be emphasised by the British representatives there. One would hope that they would be able to come back with a sense of security in supplies which would damp down the present abnormal demand. More than that I am afraid I am unable to say this afternoon.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I put one point to the noble Lord about which I am still concerned? I asked today, and I asked yesterday, whether in fact subsidised sugar will come to this country, or whether it is a subsidy for which any member country can bid. I asked this question yesterday, and I gave the noble Lord notice that I would ask it. I do not think he has yet replied to it. Would he be kind enough either to let me know the answer by letter, or should I put down a Question?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry if I appeared not to answer the question. This subsidy is committted to the total supply for the total Community demand, of which we are a part. I cannot follow the fears of the noble Earl in this regard. As a member of the Community, the United Kingdom is guaranteed her share of sugar at this guaranteed price.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, no shafts have been aimed at the sub-committee, and I have therefore nothing to reply to. All I have to do is to thank those who have spoken warmly of the Report of the Committee. I hope that the Motion will now be carried.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE
7.23 p.m.
THE LORD DRUMALBYN THE LORD DRUMALBYN rose to move, That this House takes note of the Fourth and Seventh Reports of the Select Committee (Session 1974) on Prepackaging of Liquids and Prepackaging of certain products (COM(72) 202 and R/2628/73. The noble Lord said: My Lords, first I should like to pay tribute to the quality of the evidence we have received from the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. It was plain
668
that the witnesses had been closely associated with the progress of the proposals, and had pressed very strongly the British point of view. They had had far-reaching consultations with the trade interests and consumer bodies concerned. Of course, we were under some pressure to catch up with the backlog of Commission documents; but we would not have hesitated to invite the interests I have mentioned to give evidence, should they have wished, had we not had the assurance not only that no further consultation was necessary, but that our own consumer protection bodies had, in general, accepted the proposals, albeit without enthusiasm.
Secondly, I must apologise on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, for not being able to stay for this debate. Indeed, I had counted on at least one member of our sub-committee being present to support me on this occasion, but as the hour is late I am sure noble Lords will forgive him, and for that matter me, for not having mobilised my own support on this occasion. I do not think this debate will give rise to quite the same problems that we had in the last debate where, as I understand it, we were talking about plans for a future product year. We are now dealing with proposals which relate to a continuing process of checking, and the general control of packaging.
There are really three draft Council Directives here of which I am asking this House to take note, two dealing with prepackaging of liquids, the first of which contains two proposals for Directives, and are dealt with in the Fourth Report of the Committee. One is, and I am using the words in the text,
"For the approximation of laws of the member States relating to prepackaging by volume of certain liquids in prepackages".
The second is
"For the approximation of the law relating to bottles used as measuring containers";
and then there is the other set of proposals which contains a proposal:
"For the approximation of laws relating to the making up by weight or by volume of certain prepackaged products".
I should say right away that this is a matter which is bound to be of considerable concern both to those who have to produce goods and those who consume them. Although this is quite a late hour for the House, and the Chamber is not quite as full as it can be on some

669
occasions, nevertheless, I should like to get on the Record what the Committee has been doing. I think also it is worth giving an indication in broad terms of what the proposals are about, and of the evidence we have received. I do not intend to go into any great detail, or to deal with this as if one were introducing the Second Reading of a Bill and going through the proposals in detail, for one reason.
Of course, the proposals, when they came to us, were still being negotiated. It was hoped at that time, according to the evidence we received, that some certain modifications towards the British point of view would be conceded by the Commission. I hope it may be possible to-night for the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, who is going to speak in this debate, to give your Lordships some indication whether the efforts of the Government in this respect have been successful. First of all, just to tell your Lordships what this is about, the liquids with which the first proposed Directive is concerned, are wines, ciders and perries, beer, spirits, vinegar and vinegar substitutes, edible oils, milk, waters and soft drinks, non-fermented fruit juices and vegetable juices. The remainder of prepackaged liquids which come under the heading of foodstuffs is covered by the third proposal, and the headings covered by that proposal are listed in the Seventh Report of the Committee.
Your Lordships will note that all these proposals are for Directives, that is for Instruments to be implemented through legislation by member States in so far as their provisions are not already part of the Statutory Law of the member States. Of course, complete liberty as to the form of the legislation is left to the Governments of the member States to decide. The broad purpose is to remove obstacles to trade between the member States in the foods and liquids concerned, and to ensure freedom of access of them as between member States, provided they conform to the Directives when made. It is proposed they should be brought into force by member countries eighteen months after approval by the Council and notification.
In both its Fourth and Seventh Reports the Committee expressed the opinion that the proposals should be drawn to the attention of your Lordships,
670
because of the principle involved, which is the same in both draft Directives. It differs from the principle on which our weights and measures legislation is based.
First I should explain what we are talking about, what this word "prepackages" means. The word "prepacked" of course, is used in our weights and measures legislation and is defined in it, but it is not quite the same with the Directives. The draft Directives define "prepackages" as
"A combination of a product and the individual package in which it is prepacked."
In the case of the liquids, the subject of the first Directive, the product is prepacked when contained in any kind of packaging prepared in advance and sealed before presentation for sale. In regard to the third Directive, in the case of the products, mainly solids, the elements in the definition are, first, that the product should be in a container or packet; that the contents should be of a fixed amount and cannot be varied without breaking open the container or packet, and, thirdly, that the purchaser should not have been present when the container or packet was filled.
The principle on which Section 24 of the Weights and Measures Act 1963 is based is that the quantity of all goods which are prepacked in a container on which the quantity of the contents is indicated must not be less than the quantity so indicated. If they are less then an offence is committed, with certain defences that I need not go into. I should add that this requirement applies to liquids and solids and alike to weight and volume. In other words, this is the principle of minimum quantity. This means that the control is effective at the point of retail sale; that is, that the local Weights and Measures authorities, now the trading standards authorities, make test purchases in the shops, either as a matter of routine or if there is reason to suspect that an offence has been or is being committed.
The principle on which the two draft Directives is based is that of average contents. Control is required to be exercised by the packer or, in the case of imported prepacked goods, by the importer. The main point of enforcement is the factory or packing centre. The Directives lay down the content requirements in considerable detail but leave the method to

671
member States. Each batch or run at the factory would have to be tested to ensure that the average contents of the prepackages, taking the batch as a whole, is not less than the nominal weight or volume—that is the quantity that is marked on the packet—and a specified number of samples, varying with the aggregate of the batch or length of the run, would have to be examined to ensure that deviation from the average (that is, deficiency errors) do not exceed maximum tolerances. In taking the evidence we did not go extensively into this question of maximum tolerances because of the fact that this had already been discussed with the trade interests and with the consumer bodies. Proper records would have to be kept for inspection by the competent authorities, who are required to carry out also sampling tests on the premises of the packer or importer.
Incidentally, the second Directive divides products into two classes and fixes different levels of tolerances both in relation to the quantity in the packet and in relation to the nature of the product. The tolerances are greater, for example, in relation to products the flow properties or density of which cannot economically be kept constant. In such cases the tolerances are greater. The second Directive lays down that no prepackage having an error in deficiency greater than twice the maximum permitted deficiency shall knowingly be marketed under the EEC symbol—this "E" that has to be put on—and that symbol indicates that all packages bearing it conform with the requirements.
The first Directive on liquids prescribes the permitted nominal contents of bottles and other containers, and the second directive deals with what are called "measuring container bottles". I regret that there is a little confusion between first, second and third Directives. There are two Directives under the first set of proposals and then there is another Directive. This deals with measuring container bottles, which the Directive requires shall be filled to a constant level and so marked as to indicate the nominal contents and the firm that fills them. Each liquid, beer, spirits, milk, whatever, may be packed in several different sizes, the volume in each case being designated in litres. As a transitional measure there
672
is an additional list of "provisionally permitted" signs which may be used up to the end of 1980. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will no doubt tell us about any special arrangements which have been negotiated since then, for example, for milk. In the case of products covered by the third Directive, quantities may be indicated during the transitional period in both imperial and international standard measures at the same time; they can carry both the imperial and the metric measures at the same time. There is no issue of metric versus imperial units involved in the proposals, since this country is already moving progressively towards metrication.
Translated into practice, the two principles are known as the minimum system and the average system. The advantage of the minimum system is obvious. The consumer is entitled, come what may, to the quantity indicated on the package. If the quantity is less, the packer commits an offence, and so does anyone who sells the goods or has them in his possession for sale, unless he can produce the necessary defences. But, of course, the consumer pays for this protection. In order to be sure that the quantity indicated is supplied in all circumstances, the packer has to err on the other side. In other words under the minimum system if the packer packs one million kilo packets or litre bottles he will have to supply in order to be sure, perhaps one million and twenty thousand kilos or one million and twenty thousand litres, for which consumers in the aggregate have to pay. Actually, he has to pack more than is indicated on the package. Even so, it is difficult to ensure that no kilo package will ever contain less than a kilo, allowing for loss of moisture, "rogue" units and the like. I refer to kilos merely to avoid confusion between pounds sterling and pounds weight.
One argument in favour of the minimum system is that in theory it should encourage packers to improve their quantity control techniques and machinery. But we are told in evidence that the Department has no evidence that we are ahead of countries which have adopted the average system in this respect. At the end of the day the protection offered to the consumer depends more on the efficiency and determination with which a system is enforced than on

673
the nature of the system, given that it is a reasonable system. If one country considers that another country is not enforcing the system effectively within the Community, a procedure is laid down in the Measuring Instruments Directive of 1971 whereby a complaint may be made to that other country, and failing satisfaction the complainant may take the complaint to the Commission. So that there are safeguards and arguments both ways here.
As I said at the outset, the object of the Directives is to ensure that goods may pass freely between member States. Any goods bearing the prescribed symbol to show that they comply with the system will not be treated as imported goods and will not therefore be subject to quantity checks; it will all be treated as one trading area. Whatever the intrinsic methods of the two systems, it does seem plain to the Committee that the average system is more suitable for inter Community trade. The Directives do not require that all goods covered by them should conform to the system, but only that goods which do conform will have freedom of access, and this is what is called "optional harmonisation".
To quote the evidence we were given:
"The concept is that a common standard should exist through the whole of the Community, so that producers of a given good in one country could be sure that within the limits of the subject matter in this directive,"—
that was in fact the liquids Directive—
"no legislation in any other member State could forbid freedom of access to those countries."
The question is, then, which of the two systems—minimum or average—should be adopted for common use. The United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland were the only countries to press for the minimum system. Apart from the Netherlands, no support for it was forthcoming from the other member States. Moreover, the Codex Alimentarius, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World Health Organisation body of the United Nations, favour the average system. As the witness put it to us—these are questions 147, 151:
"It became very obvious that we were out on a limb in supporting our system as against the virtual unanimity of the world in favouring … the average system.…."
I am quoting the relevant words:
674
"I would say it is fairly clear from the discussions we had in the Codex Alimentarius that the great majority of countries have adopted an average system already, and others which have not yet done so, such as the Netherlands, have gone on record then or since as intending to change over."
In these circumstances it seemed plain to the Committee that the advantage from the point of view of our trade, not only with other member States of the Community but with the rest of the world, lay overwhelmingly with changing to the average system, however distasteful it may be for us to make a change from a system to which we have become accustomed and which many people in this country would regard as superior, at least in theory.
As I have said, the chief interest of consumers lies in having a system that is capable of being, and is efficiently and effectively, enforced. It is apparent that other member States are broadly satisfied with the average system, and there seems no reason why consumers in this country, once they have become accustomed to it, will not find it equally satisfactory.
The main point, however, is that in the view of the Committee there would, in the long term, be penalties for our international trade if we did not come into line with the proposals in the two Directives—penalties which would outweigh the advantages of adhering to our present system. At the same time, it appears that the interests of consumers will be satisfactorily secured, and that the high standards of enforcement which our trading standards authorities have achieved will be fully maintained. For these reasons, the Committee found it right to support the proposals that are made in the Directives, but because of the question of the principle involved, to invite the attention of your Lordships to them. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Fourth and Seventh Reports of the Select Committee (Session 1974) on Prepackaging of Liquids and Pre-packaging of certain products (COM(72) 202 and R/2628/73).—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
7.45 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord and his Committee for the work that they have done on this question, and for the

675
Report which they have submitted to the House. From this Bench I would welcome the Report and commend it to the House. With the development of consumer protection throughout the world, there has been increasing weights and measures legislation throughout the world. This has led to an increasing number of differences between the legislation on weights and measures of different States. These differences are a very important technical barrier to international trade. This Committee had placed before them an example showing how our trade in foodstuffs with West Germany was greatly hindered, because of the differences in the weights and measures of West Germany as compared with ours. At this late hour I shall not repeat the example, I shall merely refer your Lordships to it in the evidence placed before the Committee.
These Directives are optional harmonisation solutions. This means two things: it means that each of the States in the Community must allow free access to goods which comply with the Directives; but it also means that they are equally free to operate less stringent provisions. For example, we can still sell our pint of milk; that is a less stringent provision. Furthermore, since we knew that the milk trade had already said that they would either prefer to keep to the pint, or, alternatively, to have the 0·6 litre bottle if they had to metricate, provision has been made, as a result of the work of the United Kingdom representatives, to get the 0·6 litre for milk included in the Directive up to 1980 so far as intra-Community trade is concerned. But so far as the domestic trade of the United Kingdom is concerned, we can sell the 0·6 litre indefinitely, so that our milk trade and our milk distributors are amply covered.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean 0·56?
LORD JACQUES: No, my Lords, 0·6. The pint is 0·57. We can sell the pint, 0·57, indefinitely because that is less stringent. In addition to that, so far as milk is concerned, we have had put into the Directives 0·6 for intra-Community trade, and that will be there until 1980. Quite apart from that, in the same way as in the domestic market we
676
can sell the pint or 0·57 litre indefinitely, we can sell the 0·6 litre indefinitely if the milk trade so wish.
There are three Directives involved here. First, let me deal with the Directive covering bottles which are used as measuring containers. This Directive sets out the provisions under which bottles can be used as measuring instruments in the filling process. It prescribes the tolerances within which the bottles must be made; it prescribes the means of testing that have to be adopted; and it prescribes the way in which the bottles have to be marked. We have no comparable legislation in the United Kingdom. We take the view that if the filler of the bottle is subject to regulation, and it is known that the bottle is a measuring instrument by all concerned, it is reasonable that the bottle manufacturer should be subject to regulation. We therefore regard this Directive, if adopted by us, as being an important and useful addition to our present weights and measures legislation.
I come now to the second of the Directives, which is concerned with certain prepacked liquids. This Directive controls the way in which prepackages of certain specified liquids are made up for sale. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said, it includes wines, spirits, beer, milk, edible oil, fruit juice, soft drinks, and vinegar. It also specifies the range of quantities in which they are to be marketed in the intra-Community trade but not in the domestic trade. One good piece of work that the United Kingdom representatives have done in this particular respect is to advocate that the quantities which are going to be used for the intra-Community trade should, so far as possible, be the quantities that are already used in the country of origin. For example, in the case of whisky they have had accepted for intra-Community trade the sizes that we are using now for the bottle and the half-bottle, and that is an example of the useful work that has been done by our representatives.
I come now to the third Directive, which is concerned with prepacked products, mostly solids, but which includes liquids not in the previous Directive. These solids include both food and cleansing materials. The provisions are very similar to those of the previous Directive

677
dealing with liquids, but, there is one important difference, where, in the case of the Directives dealing entirely with liquids, the range of quantities in which the products have to be packed is laid down. That has not been done in this Directive. So far as solids are concerned the quantities in which the products are to be marketed in the intra-Community trade will be subject to a separate Directive which will come later. The drafts which are before the House, particularly the draft relating to solids, is not up to date. There have been many amendments and in due course we shall get more up-to-date drafts.
I come now to the central core of the problem so far as the United Kingdom is concerned. These Directives lay down the methods of control from the point of view of consumer protection. They lay down that it shall be by way of control at the point of manufacture, and that there shall be permitted tolerances according to the product and the size of the sample. They further prescribe that there shall be a declaration upon the package of the average contents, and this will be based upon the sampling, testing and tolerances as at the point of manufacture. This is the most widely accepted practice throughout the world. Only a few countries, of which we are one, are operating a different system. We have not got control at the point of manufacture; we have it at the retail point. We have not got the average system; we have got the minimum contents system. It must be accepted at once that our system is simple from the point of view of the consumer in that she knows that she should receive the quantity which is put on the package. If she is dissatisfied she can go back to the retailer, or in the last resort to the trading standards officer, and complain.
While this is accepted, I would venture to say that there has been gross exaggeration of the benefits of our particular system. If noble Lords will refer to Section 26(7) of the Weights and Measures Act, 1963, it will be seen that we have acknowledged that we have the average, that we have even acknowledged tolerances. That subsection lays down that a reasonable number of samples shall be tested and regard shall be had to the average. So that anyone who is prosecuted could point to the average, and say that on the average he was not defrauding
678
the public in any way. I would say that if the margin of error on the individual articles which compose the sample was not too great he would very likely get away with it. So we have already acknowledged the average and in a small way we have already acknowledged tolerances, for in this particular subsection it is also said that if only one article is tested any inconsiderable deficiency or surplus shall be disregarded. In other words, we have accepted that there is a tolerance which should be completely disregarded.
Therefore, I do not think this change is so violent as it might appear theoretically. Furthermore, there are certain advantages which the consumer can get by having the average system. Certain commodities, for example, tobacco, wine and knitting wools, are liable to change in weight after they have been prepacked but before they are sold. When you have the minimum quantity system at the point of retail sale it is extremely difficult to legislate for that kind of commodity, but if you have the average system at the point of manufacture you can further protect the consumer by legislating for those particular commodities because you have not got the same difficulty.
Furthermore, certain commodities are packed in a juice: for example, canned goods are packed in the juice of the fruit; meat is often packed in a gravy. By our present system we have very little control over the amount of meat or gravy or the amount of fruit or juice, as the case may be. We have to have separate Orders to deal with these questions. With the average system and control at the point of manufacture we could exercise far greater control over the solids which go among the liquid in the case of fruit or meat. There I think there would be two solid advantages for the consumer. But there are also advantages for the manufacturer. At the present time the manufacturer is in difficulty. Any one of the scores of local authorities throughout the country can pick up one of these commodities in any retail shop and have it tested, and from my own personal experience I would say that the attitude taken varies considerably from one local authority to another in, for example, how much regard they would have to "average". Under the average system the manufacturer is not concerned with the attitude which might be taken by all the local authorities throughout the

679
country. He is concerned with the attitude of the local authority inspector in the area in which the goods are manufactured. So that so far as the manufacturer is concerned there is considerable simplicity.
The manufacturer will also get a technical advantage from the averaging system. The enforcement officers will be going to the factories in their area and specifying the kind of routine they want for the purposes of checking. They will act as communicants as between one factory and another, communicating in such a way as to get the best system in all the factories. In so far as the enforcement officers will be able to convey information and will be aiming to get the best system of control in factories in their area, we can hope to get a technically more satisfactory system under the average.
Furthermore, there are advantages to the enforcement officers. Obviously, there are far fewer manufacturing points than retail points, and our very scarce standard trading officers are not going to have their time wasted in travelling from shop to shop. They will go into a factory and spend more time there doing the job for which they are trained, than in travelling from one place to the other. Your Lordships will therefore see that in the average system there can be considerable advantages.
In conclusion, I would suggest that we have to look at this question outside the context of the EEC. Whether or not we go into the Community, in the final analysis it is in our interests as a trading nation that there should be some standardisation of weights and measures legislation, so that it does not act as a barrier as between countries in international trade. In the appropriate United Nations Committee to which the noble Lord referred in a discussion at a recent meeting on this question of the methods of testing for weights and measures, all the countries except three supported the average system with sampling at the point of manufacture.
The three concerned were: first, Holland, who has already declared that she is prepared to accept the average system; secondly, Japan, who had objections only so far as certain liquids were concerned—the objections being
680
extremely limited; and, thirdly, ourselves. The rest are already on the average system with sampling at the point of manufacture. It is therefore in our interest as an important exporter to play our full part in obtaining some unanimity so far as weights and measures are concerned. The only way we can obtain that unanimity is by accepting the average system.
The noble Lord mentioned that each of the States would be allowed 18 months to put Directives into operation once they had been confirmed. I would point out that so far as the United Kingdom is concerned we are given until December, 1979, to put them into operation. So we have far more than 18 months. We have five years plus. Therefore, I assure the House that there will not be any great hurry in amending our legislation because it is not necessary that it should be done in a hurry. There will be the fullest discussions about any contemplated changes with all the interested parties—the enforcement officers, the consumer representatives and the manufacturers—to ensure, in the final analysis, the least difficulties for the manufacturers, the easiest enforcement for the local authorities and the maximum protection for the consumer. In all the circumstances, my Lords, I hope that the House will note this Report and by so doing will at least indirectly be recommending its acceptance.
8.1 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for the way in which he has dealt with the subject and the additional clarification which he has furnished. I found myself in a rather amusing position tonight in that I tried to put forward a balanced view as between the two systems in the belief that the Government had done their best to get our own system accepted elsewhere. I am sure that this was so. But tonight along comes the noble Lord and he makes an almost impassioned support of the system to which we are moving. This is satisfactory, I am sure. It merely confirms that the evidence which we were given and the judgment which we reached was, I am certain, right. I am not certain that the whole country will view it with quite the same enthusiasm as the noble Lord. Never

681
theless, I am extremely grateful to him for the way in which he has presented the arguments in favour of the new system and welcomed the Committee's work on this subject.
I have one matter about which I wish to ask him. The noble Lord mentioned the concessions which were made on the whisky content. As the original draft concerned the present whisky content, which was provisional only until the end of the transitional period, is he now saying that this has been accepted and transferred from the transitional column to the permanent column? I am not certain about this point. I understood him to say that it had now been transferred to the permanent column. Also, I am not clear about what he said on the subject of the transitional arrangements. The
682
impression I gathered was that the eighteen months applied to the general provision, but that we had the special provisional arrangements, such as the use of avoidupois measures, pints and so on, in inter-Community trade until the end of the period. It is important that we should get the matter right so that the public know where they stand. I am sure it will come out in the wash and elsewhere. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said tonight.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, in the case of whisky, I can confirm that the transfer is from provisional to permanent.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes past eight o'clock.