Commons Chamber

                    The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
                

House Of Commons

Thursday 6th November 1975

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Prayers

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers To Questions

National Finance

Growth

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the rate of growth required over the next two years to cut unemployment by half.

No single estimate is available. There are many different growth rates which could, in theory, halve unemployment in two years. The answer depends crucially on the assumed composition of growth, and its time path within the two-year period.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we used to get clearer answers to questions of that kind from Conservative spokesmen on the Treasury Bench? I do not accept that we do not have a conception of the growth required to cut unemployment by half. Will my right hon. Friend think again and write to me on this matter?

I am always happy to write to my hon. Friend. I am sorry that he finds the answers less clear than those that have been given on previous occasions. I am sometimes not altogether happy with the questions. I shall be happy to write to him.

Does the Minister accept that one way of preventing further unemployment, particularly in Scotland, is for the Government to review their attitude to the Scottish Daily News? Will he bring pressure to bear on the Prime Minister to remove the Government's first option on the building occupied by the newspaper and allow the workers to use it as collateral for further funds for the business?

That is an entirely different question. I am not sure that, in the long run, that action would help to reduce unemployment.

Do the Government expect unemployment to fall within the next two years?

As I have said on many occasions, there will be an upturn in the economy during the next two years, which will bring about an increase in employment.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statement issued to the NEDC on behalf of the Government after the Chequers talks yesterday falls far short of what the Labour Party expect the Government to achieve by the policy contained in "Labour and Industry: The Next Steps"? Is that statement not virtually a repudiation of the 1973 programme and the manifesto upon which we were elected, in that it accepts private enterprise in the future rather than the Socialist policies upon which our party is based?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend. My view is that the statement issued yesterday indicates the need to get British industry moving again and bring it back from the decline of the last 30 years. I do not believe that the statement in any way detracts from what is contained in our manifesto.

Macro-Economic Model

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans are in hand for re-designing the Treasury's macro-economic model; how much they will cost; and what benefits to the taxpayer will accrue therefrom.

The model is under continuous development. It is not possible to separate the staff costs of redesigning the model from the broader costs of forecasting and policy analysis work. It is in the interests of the taxpayer that economic policy should be based on the best possible analysis.

Of what use is this weapon? What does it do? Who looks after it? How many hours of work a week are devoted to it? Has it been approved by the CBI and the TUC? May we have a look at it at some time?

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's long-standing interests in models. I shall be happy to invite him to look at the various models which are available in the Treasury. Although the forecasts that are available from all sources—not only from the Treasury—have to take into account judgments that are not always accurate, it would be too cynical to assume that they are not of some value.

In the light of yesterday's declaration, will the Chief Secretary tell the House and the country one significant fact? What is the Government's view of the existing or projected desirable net-of-tax return on risk capital in the private sector?

That does not have much to do with models. We are in favour of a reasonable return on risk capital. This is amongst the matters, arising out of yesterday's statement, that will be discussed.

Might not one benefit from this model—if we are not to be allowed a glimpse of it—by a clearer view of the development of the public sector borrowing requirement through the year? As the Prime Minister has got into a muddle with his figures on the public sector borowing requirement, I hope that the Chief Secretary will explain the figures to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) in replying to a later Question. The confusion was not helped by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent Guildhall speech. Will the Chief Secretary reassure the House that an explanation will be given of this critical element in public confidence in the economy?

If there is anything that I can do to restore the hon. Gentleman's confidence, I shall be happy to oblige. I do not agree with what he said about my right hon. Friends. We shall make appropriate statements bearing on the forecasts that we obtain from the model.

Income Tax

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many persons are currently liable for income tax; and how many were liable four months ago.

Since income tax liability is based on income for the year and not on the rate of income at a point in time, it is not possible to state the number of tax payers at a given date in the tax year.

That answer is not entirely satisfactory. Although the effect of rapid wage and salary increases may be moderating slightly, is it not the case that large numbers of people are now passing the tax threshold and are liable to tax in very small amounts which may not cover the costs of collection, which are substantial indeed? In view of those substantial costs, will my hon. Friend examine the possibility of building into the system a greater degree of flexibility?

I am always happy to do what I can to meet the wishes of my hon. Friends. I should point out that the estimates that are based on forecasts of personal incomes are for the year as a whole, because that is how the organisation works. I also remind my hon. Friend that the problems of the lower tax threshold have a lot to do with the levels of inflation. It is this with which the main plank of our policy is concerned.

Is it not also the case that the low tax threshold has something to do with the current level of Government expenditure? Is it not the case that the tax threshold will continue to be too low until the Government get a grip on this matter?

There are two sides to the equation. Questions on public expenditure will be dealt with later. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the two main reasons for not being able to increase the tax threshold are, first, the level of inflation, which remains an important concern of our programme, and, secondly, the low level of economic activity.

In view of the fact that informed opinion for the past decade or more has been that our taxation system is far from progressive, and that we are all committed, in principle, to the ideal of having a truly progressive taxation system, what are the Government's proposals to rejig the system so that it becomes truly progressive and, therefore, more equitable?

I understand that my hon. Friend has some complaints about certain levels of tax at various stages along the path. He must be aware that a system is progressive when higher rates of tax are charged on higher levels of income. In so far as our system does that, it is truly a progressive one.

European Community

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the net result of Great Britain's financial contribution to the European Community in terms of expenditure and receipts during 1975.

During the first eight months of 1975, payments by the United Kingdom to the Community Budget amounted to £212 million; receipts in the same period totalled £269 million.

Does the Minister accept that this reveals a far more satisfactory outcome than would have been anticipated even a short time ago, and provides continuing evidence that a policy of concerted action with our European partners is by far the best means of protecting vital British interests?

We should not be too complacent about the situation in 1975, which, so far, looks good. For the future, in conjunction with our partners, we shall have to ensure that there is, for example, a reduction in expenditure on the common agricultural policy, which will be most helpful to this country.

As we seem to be making a marginal profit, so soon, out of our membership of the EEC, what do the Government propose to do, particularly in respect of the common agricultural policy, to ensure that this welcome trend continues?

The Government and, in particular, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, are pursuing vigorously the question of reducing the cost of the common agricultural policy generally, which will be helpful to this country.

Tax Receipts

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total of tax receipts in the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available expressed as a sum per head of population; and what were the comparable figures two, five and 10 years previously.

In the 12 months ending June 1975, total tax receipts on the basis used in the national accounts were equivalent to £493 per head of population. The corresponding figures for earlier years were: year ending June 1965, £163; June 1970, £214; June 1973, £333. Total tax receipts comprise taxes on income, expenditure and capital; taxes on expenditure include local authority rates.

It is truly frightening to see how the tax per head of population has soared. Is not one of the major factors which are crippling industry and enterprise in this country, and thereby creating more unemployment, the intolerable load of direct taxation? Will the Minister, therefore, bear in mind the desperate need to reduce taxation as a means of ensuring the revival of economic and employment prospects.

No one can profess to be happy at the high levels of taxation as they apply to the general population. I remind the hon. Gentleman that a large element in this increase is a direct result of inflation. If direct taxes were to be reduced in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests, the result would be higher, not lower levels of inflation.

Does my hon. Friend recall that when the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition he once described the tax avoidance industry as being the most thriving industry in the country? Was that the case under the previous Conservative Government, and under this Government is it subsiding?

No one can escape the fact that the tax avoidance industry was a flourishing one. We have made its task somewhat harder by the actions that we have taken over the past 18 months.

Will the Minister acknowledge that because of its size the tax burden is now predominantly and inequitably borne by the ordinary working population of this country? Does he accept that if all tax rates with yields above 50 per cent. were abolished only about 4 per cent. of the £14 billion yield of income tax would be lost? Further, does he accept that under this Government we shall have to face marginal rates in excess of 40 per cent. of tax, including national insurance contributions? Is that not another overwhelming reason for the Government to get a tighter grip on public spending?

Although I cannot accept the figures advanced by the right hon. Gentleman without a closer examination of them, it is true that the average level of burden on ordinary men and women earning incomes in this country has increased. However, that burden cannot be reduced without there being a higher level of inflation of a kind that we cannot accept. On the question of public expenditure, the right hon. Gentleman will know that a number of Questions have been tabled which will be answered later.

Expenditure

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that any public expenditure cuts do not conflict with the Government's policy of reducing unemployment.

As my right hon. Friend has made clear on numerous occasions, we do not think it desirable, at a time of high unemployment and when the economy is working below capacity, to make reductions in public expenditure this year. Indeed, in September and October we announced increased expenditure on quick-acting measures to alleviate unemployment.

I think my hon. Friend will agree that these were very minor. Does he also agree that unemployment breeds on unemployment? Even in the orthodox sense, what is the use of depriving people of the opportunity of going to work—people who, therefore, have to claim rate and rent rebates, supplementary benefits, unemployment benefits and the 40 other means-tested allowances, when at the same time those who remain in work are the very taxpayers who have to contribute a greater amount to pay for all those allowances? Is this not the policy of the lunatic asylum? If the system cannot be changed within the present boundaries, is it not important that, as members of the Labour movement, we change the system which breeds this kind of policy?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the need to change the system. However, whatever may be the system that we have today, we would not help those who are unemployed by taking measures of general reflation, which, in the long term, would be positively damaging to those who are now unemployed and to others who might become so.

Both the public sector borrowing requirement and the present and proposed levels of public expenditure are bound to absorb all the cash that is presently and likely to be available. Where will the money come from for the revival in investment which was planned yesterday at Chequers, if there is not a further cut in public expenditure?

We have constantly made it clear that, in order to make room for the upturn in the economy that we expect, there will need to be cuts in public expenditure. Following next year, we expect that this will be absolutely right, in order to make room in the economy for precisely the investment to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

10.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any further proposals to curb public expenditure; and if he will make a statement.

19.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any further proposals to curb public expenditure.

22.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fresh proposals he has for controlling public expenditure; and whether he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Members to the answer which was given to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) on 29th October.—[Vol 898, c. 532.]

Despite the Chancellor's lamentable lack of courage in refraining from acting now, will he at least confirm that an essential element in his new industrial and economic strategy is steadily to reduce the share of gross domestic product taken by public expenditure in general and by social expenditure, however worthy, in particular?

Will he also say whether he still expects to be able to fulfil his Budget promise to phase out completely the price restraint subsidies to the nationalised industries by next April?

On the first question, it is my intention—I have made this clear on many occasions—to bring down the size of the public sector borrowing requirement drastically as recovery takes off. All the other countries which have public sector deficits of comparable size with ours, like Germany and the United States, have announced similar intentions. I do not think that it is possible to achieve this objective without substantial cuts in currently planned public expenditure programmes in 1977–78 and 1978–79, and I told the House in the debate in July that for that reason the whole Cabinet had agreed that there was very little room indeed for further growth in public expenditure beyond next year, in those two following years.

We also made it clear in the statement that we debated at Chequers, at the NEDC meeting yesterday, that, if we give first priority to industrial growth, as not only the Government but the CBI and the TUC now do, it must mean a lower priority for private consumption and for some of our social objectives. I am glad to say that the same view was taken by the Labour Party conference, when it unanimously accepted a document entitled "Labour and Industry", which contained this undertaking.

Is it not obvious that further cuts in public expenditure in the next two years will only worsen unemployment—[Interruption.] In view of today's survey by the CBI of forthcoming lay-offs, is not unemployment—[Interruption.]—now reaching such levels that there will be more than sufficient workers in the years ahead both—[Interruption.]

Order. These private discussions must take place outside.

I hope that you are not rebuking me, Mr Speaker. Will not there be more than sufficient labour available to cover both industrial expansion and public expenditure on housing, health and education?

I made it clear that I do not propose to cut public expenditure this financial year. I also made it clear in my Budget Statement that the Government were cutting—they have now programmed these cuts in detail—planned public expenditure for the next financial year by about £1 billion at current prices, and in the following years there will have to be further cuts in programmes. This is for reasons which are fully accepted by the Labour Party conference, and I look to my hon. Friend, as a member of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, to show the same loyalty to conference decisions as he is always requiring of others.

Dealing with the point my hon. Friend made about unemployment and capacity, what he must accept is that, although it is possible for the Government to finance, without undue inflationary consequences, a public sector borrowing requirement of the current size while there is a very high level of private saving and a very low level of company investment, that will not be possible without printing money once the economy recovers. Both sides of the House must accept this as an arithmetical and statistical fact, from which there is no escape.

I congratulate the Chancellor on that last statement, which was much plainer than anything we have had before. Would it not be a kindness if he were to take every opportunity of ramming home to his supporters the fact that there will have to be massive public expenditure cuts, and that the argument is between people like himself, who find it politically easier to delay them, and people on the Opposition side of the House who believe that the cuts should be made now, however painful, if private industry is to have the resources and the opportunity to make new investment and create new jobs next year?

I do not need lectures from the hon. Gentleman about the way in which I should address my hon. Friends. However, if he is determined that we should cut public expenditure this year, he has a duty to fulfil an obligation which his leaders have continually dodged, namely, to tell us by how much—I do not even ask him to state where we must make the cuts; Opposition spokesmen have never been prepared to give any indication of that—he wants to make the cuts and what would be the unemployment consequences of those quantities. If he is not prepared to answer that question—his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) has never been prepared to do so—all this rhetoric is so much hypocritical humbug.

When the decisions on the public expenditure cuts are taken, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the top priorities in Labour's social programmes, such as housing, pensions and regional development, are protected?

I accept that it is most important not to make cuts across the board but to relate the cuts to the priority which the Government have set themselves, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall do so.

Is the Chancellor aware that the people of Scotland will not accept any cuts in public expenditure in Scotland, particularly as Scottish oil is beginning to flow? Any cuts in public expenditure in Scotland will lead to even higher unemployment in Scotland, where unemployment is now running at six times that of another oil producing nation—Norway.

When he makes these remarks the hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that Scotland enjoys a higher proportion of public expenditure per capita than do other parts of the United Kingdom and, partly as a result of this, has seen unemployment increase very much more slowly than most parts of the United Kingdom, particularly the Midlands and the South-East.

On one specific example of public expenditure, has the Chancellor noticed the increase of nearly 11,000 in the Civil Service under this Government, with particularly sharp increases in Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue?

The hon. Gentleman should know that the increases in the Customs and Excise are the exclusive result of the value added tax introduced by the Tory Government, and we warned them at the time that that was bound to be the result. We do not propose to try to conceal increases in the Civil Service by hiving off, from Government Departments to bodies like the Manpower Services Commission, functions which in fact are part of Government policy. Nevertheless, in spite of these devices, Civil Service numbers increased under the Tory administration.

As my right hon. Friend and I lay great store by Labour Party conference decisions, will he tell the House and the Labour Party Conference precisely what his public expenditure plans are for 1977–78 and 1978–79 and thereby get the approval of the party conference before the event, not after the event, and so that the party knows precisely where it stands?

Unfortunately, my understanding is that there will not be another Labour Party conference until October next year, and I cannot guarantee that it will not be necessary to tell the House of my plans for public expenditure in those years before that date.

Is the Chancellor really saying that, in face of the substantial excess of the public sector borrowing requirement, as of now, over the forecast that he made at the time of the Budget—which he would be willing to reveal if he were going to have a Budget next week—he has no further plans for reducing public spending next year beyond those announced in his last Budget Statement? If that is the position—and the whole House believes that the borrowing requirement is already £3 billion beyond his Budget forecast—is the right hon. Gentleman not taking the gravest possible risks of a serious economic situation? Is it not cruel folly to believe that he can run the economy without planning further substantial cuts in public spending next year?

I have answered that already today. I have made it clear that the answer is "No". I am not prepared to take these general lectures from a putative leader of the Conservative Party who refuses to give any indication of how big an increase of unemployment he is prepared to engender by cuts in public expenditure, this year or next year, of a size which he refuses to tell the House.

Borrowing Requirement

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the present size of the public sector deficit for the current financial year.

It has never been the practice to publish forecasts other than at the time of Budgets.

Is it not an extraordinary insight into the rakish mind of the Chancellor that he apparently thinks that the question "What would you cut?" ought to come before the question "What can you afford?"? Is it not a fact that the Chancellor ought to have an overall view of the level of public spending and that individual Departments ought to make cuts to fall within the limits?

Of course I take an overall view of public spending. That is why I took the decision earlier this year, and have stuck to it right through the year, that it would be a great mistake to try to cut public spending in a year in which unemployment is rising. It is not an irrelevant question to ask the hon. Gentleman and his various leaders on the Opposition Front Bench how big a cut in the public sector borrowing requirement they are aiming at, and how big an increase in unemployment that would bring about.

One of the things that worries some of us about public spending is that we use too many resources to achieve the effect that we do. What are the Government doing to improve the cost-effectiveness of the public sector?

As my hon. Friend will know, one of the major problems has been reorganisations of the administration in the public sector carried out by the Conservative Party. I mention particularly the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) whose reorganisation of local government is now generally agreed to have brought about an unacceptable increase of public expenditure in that field, and the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), whose reorganisation of National Health Service administration has not only been extremely wasteful but also positively damaging to the efficiency of the service.

May I ask the Chancellor, first, whether the introduction of an incomes policy has reduced or increased the Government's borrowing requirement, as compared with his Budget deficits? Second, how is it that the recently published Government figures show that in the year following local government reorganisation the number of administrative staff declined by 2 per cent.?

On the first question, the introduction of the £6 limit in July will reduce the pay costs in the public sector for the current financial year. On the second question, the studies that the Government have carried out have shown that since local authority reorganisation the ratio of non-productive administrative personnel to productive personnel has increased throughout local authorities.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current size of public sector borrowing requirement, and the means by which it is being financed.

As I have said, it is not the practice to provide revised forecasts of the current size of the public sector borrowing requirement, other than at Budget time. The borrowing requirement is financed from the non-bank public, from the banking sector, and externally. The pattern varies from quarter to quarter.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware, however, that Members of Parliament do not lead such cloistered and sheltered lives that they cannot face up to financial facts of life? Therefore, is it not now quite evident that the public sector borrowing requirement is running at an annual rate of £12,000 million? Is not the only inference to be drawn from the right hon. Gentleman's Mansion House speech that he expects it to be running at an even higher level next year?

I have no responsibility for—nor a very great interest in—the life style of the hon. Gentleman, but I take his assurance that he does not live his life in a cloistered way. However, the British concept of a public sector borrowing requirement is not one that is used in other countries—[Interruption.] No. The nearest equivalent which permits a comparison to be made is that of a general Government deficit. Our deficit is running at about the same level as those of Germany and the United States, and for the same reasons—that there are very high levels of unemployment in all three countries, which our Governments are determined to bring down.

Will my right hon. Friend say how much bigger the deficit would have been had he not cut Maplin and the Channel Tunnel, the lovely darlings of the Opposition?

Without notice I cannot give an exact figure. However, I recall working out that if the Government had accepted all the proposals made by the Conservative Party at the last General Election, the public sector borrowing requirement would be at least £3 billion higher than it is today.

Is the Chancellor aware that at least some of us on the Opposition side of the House support him in his firm stand against the panic and hysterical cries for public expenditure cuts from the "fat cats" on the Conservative Benches? Will he, however, comment on the evidence given to the Public Expenditure Committee by Mr. Wynne Godley—that public expenditure has been out of control ever since the PESC system was introduced, and that it went positively berserk under the previous Conservative Government from about 1971 onwards? Does the Chancellor agree that it is the main and primary function of this House to control public expenditure? Will he comment on the fact that over all these years the House has been failing manifestly in its main function?

Without commenting on the zoological remarks of the hon. Gentleman, let me say that I welcome his support as much as I deplore his hostility from time to time. But he is absolutely right in the main points he has made. He asked me to comment on Mr. Wynne Godley's evidence. The facts revealed by Mr. Wynne Godley about the total failure of the previous Conservative Government to control public expenditure deserve very serious consideration by Opposition Members—although I am glad to say that the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who sparked off this discussion, would agree, I think, with both of us about the responsibility of the Opposition Front Bench for the situation in which we find ourselves. He knows that the present Government are introducing cash limits on public expenditure in the coming year. We get a little bored by being preached at by the Conservative Front Bench to introduce cash limits when the Conservatives never took a step towards it when they had the opportunity to do so.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now begin to face his own responsibilities? Will he recognise that in successive Budgets his own forecasts of the public sector borrowing requirement have been wildly and grotesquely wrong? Does he recall that in his Budget Statement this year he said that a borrowing requirement of £10 billion would be unacceptably high, and incompatible with the Government's overall strategy? How far beyond that limit is the figure now running? When, if ever, will the point arise at which the Chancellor will decide to reduce public expenditure, as the only effective means of preventing monetary incontinence, unduly high interest rates and the total crowding out of private sector investment?

I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman does anything to make up for the deficiencies in his record by that type of sermonising—[Interruption.] I shall answer the question. First, I am not going to give an estimate of the public sector borrowing requirement for the current financial year. No Government have done so in the past, except at Budget time.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the size of the public sector borrowing requirement crowding out private investment. If he and his hon. Friends had read the newspapers yesterday, they would have noticed that there has been a very substantial and welcome increase in bank borrowing by manufacturing industry in the last month. There is no evidence whatever that the size of the public sector deficit is crowding out borrowing by private business for investment purposes. I only wish that British business was following the example set by American multinational companies, which have been steadily increasing their investment in Britain in the last two years and propose a further increase next year.

12.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the Government's overall borrowing requirement for the current year to the latest available date.

24.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Government borrowing in the current year now amounts to.

Borrowing by the Central Government, including borrowing for on-lending to other parts of the public sector, in the current financial year to end September, was £4,690 million.

How long does the right hon. Gentleman think the Government can go on with the current rate of overspending, of about £20 a week for each family? Do not the same natural laws apply to profligate Governments as to profligate individuals who overspend at that rate?

I have less experience of profligate individuals than the hon. Gentleman may have. What I can tell him is that in a period like this, every other country with which I am familiar has accepted a public sector deficit of roughly the same size as ours in proportion to its gross domestic product. The Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, for example, announced the other day that the German public sector deficit, which is a good deal less, conceptually, than our public sector borrowing requirement, was running at 7·2 per cent. of Germany's gross domestic product.

Earlier, my right hon. Friend stated his keenness to abide by Labour Party conference decisions. Does he not agree that the public sector borrowing requirement could be reduced in terms of the probable check on unemployment if the Government immediately took note of composite Resolution No. 27 at the Labour Party conference, which called for the introduction of selective import controls?

No, Sir. I do not agree with the connection between that resolution and the consequences for employment which my hon. Friend thinks would flow from its adoption. The conference agreed with me that there must be a substantial and dramatic fall in the public sector deficit once recovery takes off.

As the figures quoted by the Chancellor indicate an increase above his estimate in the Budget, and as he told me earlier that the Government's incomes policy had reduced the estimates of labour costs, where has the increase taken place?

The main increase this year in the public sector borrowing requirement has been due to the higher levels of unemployment than previously expected, because this has both substantially increased Government expenditure on unemployment and other benefits and reduced Government revenue from taxation.

Instead of taking note of the Opposition, who have been calling for public expenditure cuts, will my right hon. Friend consider publishing the Treasury document which, as reported in the Press, shows unemployment soaring to two million in two years' time, the most optimistic forecast being a 1,500,000 minimum by winter 1978? In the light of this, does not my right hon. Friend agree that instead of the proposals discussed at Chequers what we really need is more public ownership?

I think that my hon. Friend must be referring to the report in the Morning Star on Saturday. As I told a Press conference yesterday, that report was completely and wholly untrue.

Income Tax Allowance (Female Pensioners)

11.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what weekly amount the income tax allowance for a single woman retirement pensioner aged 60 years exceds the basic retirement pension; and how this compares with the November 1973 figure.

At present, the tax allowance for a single person under 65 exceeds the corresponding basic state retirement pension by £1·38 in weekly terms, compared with a figure of £3·69 in November 1973.

Does my hon. Friend agree that these figures demonstrate that many single women retiring at 60, and many widows, are facing an increased tax burden although they have only modest part-time earnings, and when many of them are living at or below the supplementary benefit level? Does he not also agree that if the National Insurance Fund accepts that there is a case for women retiring at the age of 60, the Treasury should accept that there is a case for extending the age allowance to these women as well?

If women retiring at 60 were to qualify for the age allowance there would be the problem of men retiring below their standard age of retirement, which is 65, and the unfair comparison between them and women. My hon. Friend must accept that one of the main reasons for the decline in the difference between the retirement pension and the threshold of taxation has been the very large increase in retirement pensions brought in by the present Government.

Republic Of Ireland

Q1.

asked the Prime Minister, when he next proposes to pay an official visit to Dublin.

I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

If the Prime Minister has the opportunity to do so, will he make it clear to the Irish Government that, as well as concern for the fate of Dr. Herrema, there is deep respect in this country for the refusal of that Government to be blackmailed, and for their careful handling of this case? If the right hon. Gentleman should have occasion to see Mr. Lynch, will he convey to him that some of his recent statements have suggested to people here more political opportunism than a genuine concern either for the minority or for the majority in the North?

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I made clear last week our admiration of the way in which the Herrema kidnapping was being handled. I repeat it now. I believe that the whole House will wish to see the case satisfactorily resolved and will want to pay tribute to the firm resolve of the Irish Government.

There is no ministerial responsibility here or, indeed, in the Republic, for statements by Mr. Jack Lynch, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made clear our total disagreement with Mr. Lynch's statement, as it has been so widely interpreted.

With the time my right hon. Friend has saved by not going to Dublin, will he take time to consider the suggestion that before any proposals for the potentially dangerous adventures into devolution are brought before the House he will see that proposals are also advanced for the English regions and that, in any event, no legislation will be brought to the House before there have been referenda in all parts of the United Kingdom?

I have made it clear that it is not appropriate that when I am replying to Questions about where I may go or not go, other questions should be raised. My hon. Friend's supplementary question has nothing whatever to do with a visit to Dublin. The only result of such a supplementary question, important though it is—my hon. Friend should put a Question on the Order Paper about it—is to prevent other hon. Members from putting supplementaries which are related to the Question on the Order Paper.

Industrial Strategy (Chequers Meeting)

Q2.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the NEDC meeting on industrial strategy held at Chequers on 5th November.

Q4.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the meeting of NEDC held at Chequers on 5th November to discuss new industrial strategy.

Q6.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the NEDC meeting at Chequers on the new industrial strategy.

Q9.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government-TUC-CBI meeting at Chequers on 5th November.

At yesterday's meeting of the National Economic Development Council at Chequers, we had a long and constructive discussion on the Government's new approach to industrial strategy. The Government's proposals, copies of which are in the Library of the House, will be published as a White Paper as soon as possible. These proposals represent an approach, not an immediate solution to our industrial problems, but, as the result of yesterday's meeting, it is now a common approach shared by the Government and the representatives of the unions and management on the National Economic Development Council. Now that the Council has endorsed the Government's approach, the full resources of Government and industry will be applied to make it work.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this new, united approach to developing a long-term industrial strategy is widely and warmly welcomed on the Government side of the House? Does he not, therefore, regret the carping and unhelpful criticism of the Opposition spokesmen on industry this morning, which sought to bring divisions within that strategy? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that City institutions responsible for investment—investment is one of the keys to the success of the policy—are adequately represented in the NEDC and discussions with the Government on this policy?

Yes, Sir. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. I know that the approach yesterday has been warmly welcomed generally. It was welcomed in our meetings with the CBI and the TUC. With reference to my hon. Friend's remarks about the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who has apparently made some pronouncements on this matter today, we are used to his going off half-cock on every issue without even understanding what it is about, and of course we realise the problems of the Opposition Front Bench in this matter. I hoped he would have given a little more time and consideration to something which has been welcomed, in its general approach, by the CBI. For some time now—it began under the previous Government—two members of the NEDC have been appointed as being, if not spokesmen, at least able to speak on behalf of City and financial interests.

Now that profit is apparently no longer a dirty word, will the Prime Minister tell us what the Government are going to do to increase profitability in industry and commerce, and so get the investment that everybody needs?

The most important thing is to increase investment and see that it goes to the right places. That is what we were talking about yesterday. We saw the boom of Lord Barber, in which investment went anywhere but into industry. We must also ensure that we get a much better return on investment, in terms of productivity, than we have had in the past, compared with other countries. This matter was very fully discussed yesterday. As to the hon. Member's references to profit, he will be able to study the White Paper when it is published and we shall be most grateful for any constructive suggestions from him, which can be considered in conjunction with the expert proposals of the CBI and the TUC.

While welcoming the commitment of the CBI, the TUC and the Government to a high-output, high-wage economy may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that the first prerequisite is to get the work force back into full employment, and that major contributory factors towards that would be an urgent interim review of the situation at Chrysler U.K., and for the Government to give serious and urgent consideration to the prompt introduction of selective import controls?

In the public statement that I made yesterday, a copy of which has been placed in the Library, I referred to a high-output, high-earnings economy based on full employment. We spent time yesterday discussing the present unemployment situation. We are concerned to see that nothing happens in the immediate future which will make it more difficult for British industry to respond to the challenges of expanding world trade. We do not want to see, as we have in past cycles, the removal of constraints operating so quickly that the brakes have to be put on. As my hon. Friend is aware, I had a meeting with Mr. Riccardo on Monday, as I reported to the House. That was followed by meetings between the Chrysler management and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and officials of his Department. Mr. Riccardo subsequently met trade union leaders and, I understand, some hon. Members. The position is now being urgently considered by the Government. This is a highly critical situation and for that reason I do not wish to add to my earlier statement just yet. A full report will be made to the House as soon as possible.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome his objective of a profitable industry and the need for investment to give a good return? Will he spell out a little more clearly than the newspapers have yet done what is meant by reports which say that, in the immediate future, the Government must give priority to industrial investment over social objectives and consumption? What immediate steps does he propose to take to give effect to that strategy?

When the right hon. Lady has had a chance to study the White Paper—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I shall answer it, but I am not having one sentence taken out of context. The right hon. Lady will have an opportunity to comment on the White Paper after due time for reflection. We have said that there should be much greater emphasis on investment. The right hon. Lady's Government were lamentably unsuccessful in this matter. Most of the money they printed went into property development. [HON. MEMBERS: Answer the question."] The answer to the right hon. Lady's question is the one I have already given in the House on a number of occasions. As we proceed from a situation of world depression and unemployment to recovery and a much higher level of industrial activity, it will be essential to have resources available for investment, exports and expanding production. For that reason, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer no doubt explained yet again today and as I have said on many occasions, we are reviewing Government expenditure for that particular period.

In other words, the right hon. Gentleman has no positive proposals, but only talk.

I do not know if the right hon. Lady put questions to the Chancellor on these matters today, though I would doubt it. We have made clear that, in accordance with the practice of previous Governments—though, I hope, with much more success—we shall be examining, as one always does at this time of the year, expenditure for two or three years ahead—but not cuts for this year. The right hon. Lady says we have nothing but talk, but I would like her to get up and tell us what she would cut now.

If the Government are to achieve the objective of encouraging workers to transfer from declining industries to expanding industries, there will have to be a higher priority for industrial training and retraining and a more imaginative approach to rehousing and other problems. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the human questions of manpower planning will be given due weight in the Government's strategy?

If there was one issue above all others on which we all agreed yesterday, it was the need for continuing to increase the provision for training and retraining. In successive Budgets, and at other times, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has greatly increased the provision for industrial training. It was the view of everyone at the Chequers meeting that we must continue this programme, particularly for training in industry. It is lamentably small compared with some of our competitors, particularly Sweden. Everyone recognised yesterday that with the present speed of technological advance and change, not only are big regional movements needed, but many, perhaps most, of the industrial work force—management and trade unions—will need programmes of retraining once, twice or three times in their working lifetimes.

If the Government's strategy is to increase investment and productivity, but presupposes, if there is not to be increased unemployment, that there must be an increase in demand, how will this be stimulated?

The hon. Member is absolutely right. Looking beyond the present period of world depression, we were concerned that there should not be constraints, shortage of capacity or misdirected capacity when we get into the boom, as there has been in successive industrial cycles under successive Governments of the two major parties in the past. Our document was related to this and was welcomed, from this point of view, by the TUC and the CBI. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been answering questions on this subject today. We are very concerned about maintaining capacity for the future, hence the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade on Monday, which I picked up in my statement on Tuesday, on the question of ensuring that industries with a viable future when industrial activity picks up should not be allowed to go under. This is now one of our highest priorities.

On industrial planning, where the Government's approach is widely welcomed, and on the more specific issue of Chrysler, will my right hon. Friend consider establishing a foreign investment review board to monitor the activities in this country of multinational companies which also operate in a number of other countries with considerable beneficial effect to both sides in this argument?

I do not know whether machinery of that kind is required, but the monitoring of these problems is a continuing activity of Government. I prefer to say as little as possible about—[Interruption.] The Conservatives apparently can laugh about Chrysler now. I would prefer to say as little as possible about discussions going on with Chrysler. I think that hon. Members will applaud that statement. I do not want to make things more difficult. However, when the Government are faced with the situation with this particular multinational company, and with all the problems which have arisen, including the problems of new models, and when the Government are presented with a pistol to their head, it is important that discussions should continue and for the House to be given a report as soon as humanly possible.

Mr. Baker.

In view of the Prime Minister's refusal to give any details to the House today about his industrial strategy, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Order. I called Mr. Baker.

Will the Prime Minister say what time was spent at Chequers yesterday, apart from the time spent trying to pick winners in British industry, on the whole performance of public sector industries? Is it not a fact that it is the performance of public sector industries, through low productivity and over manning coupled with low output, which is proving an immense burden on the rest of the country?

I do not agree with what the hon. Member eventually managed to say, but someone with the high reputation he enjoys should not speak in slogans about picking winners in that way. As I made clear at the Press conference, that simple phrase does not describe the basis of our White Paper. I am sure that the hon. Member will have time to study the White Paper and to give us his considered and, I hope, by that time, wise views on this matter.

As for the publicly-owned industries, which were accepted and worked with by the previous Government, we knew of the great problem facing many of them, of being highly labour-intensive—a problem which has affected their economic performance. But an industry-by-industry comparison throws light on this situation. Take the railways, for example. In this country they are a public industry. In the United States they are privately-owned. They nevertheless face common problems, as do railways all over the world. In view of that, the Conservatives should get rid of their ideological preoccupations and apply themselves to the problems.

The Prime Minister reported to the House that the trade union representatives at the Chequers conference were broadly in agreement with some of the long-term strategy proposed by the Government. Is my right hon. Friend not as aware as anyone that in recent discussions the TUC put on record its firm opposition to the present level of unemployment and to the Chancellor's policy in not proposing effective immediate measures to curb rising unemployment? It has stated that it expects unemployment to rise at least to 1.2 million. Is my right hon. Friend therefore not committed to telling the House, as a result of the Chequers conference and his general policy deliberations in the Cabinet, what Government policy is for dealing with unemployment this winter? What immediate steps are proposed before the Government advance a programme of long-term strategy?

My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) has not fully or quite accurately represented what was said by the TUC or the CBI yesterday, or in separate meetings with them last week, about the forthcoming world economic summit. It is true that they expressed, as does the whole House, an extreme anxiety about the present level of unemployment. In September, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced policies of immediate help to the employment situation, including help for school leavers, and it is becoming clear that that kind of help, together with what he did in his Budget to help particular industries, is more rewarding than vast Keynesian inflationary proposals about which the whole House would have many anxieties at present.

Yesterday, we were discussing not only the present problems but the problems of ensuring that industry is able to meet all the demands put upon it when economic activity turns up. For that reason, as I said in the House on Tuesday, at Chequers yesterday and again today, it is essential that we look urgently at the problem of industries which are facing serious checks on their ability to survive. That is Government policy.

rose—

Order. We cannot have the debate on the Address this afternoon.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for the Prime Minister to make a personal statement now to correct the spurious public sector borrowing requirement figures he gave on—

Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

Belize

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Belize.

Her Majesty's Government have decided to increase the small garrison in Belize, a self-governing colony for whose defence we are responsible, in the face of increased Guatemalan military activity on the border with Belize and statements by Guatemalan Ministers of their intention to incorporate Belize in Guatemala. I hope that these reinforcements will not be needed and can be withdrawn in due course.

Our aim is to bring Belize to full independence through negotiation with Guatemala, and, in company with a number of Caribbean and other States, some 48 so far, we are co-sponsoring a United Nations resolution to that effect. In fact, talks which proved to be abortive took place earlier this year, but, despite their failure to yield any result, Her Majesty's Government are, of course, ready to resume them.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that statement and also for keeping me in touch with this difficult situation. If my memory serves me correctly, it is a situation which occurred a few years ago under a Conservative administration. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House entirely support him in maintaining and carrying out Britain's responsibilities, and in his efforts to find a solution to this very difficult problem, particularly in the interests of the people of Belize?

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. The people of Belize have expressed through universal suffrage their support for their Government who want self-determination and independence—[Interruption.] I hope that my hon. Friend does not object to that. It is our desire to try to bring those people to that situation.

Is this not a question, similar to the problems in Spanish Morocco, which involves self-determination for a people who are determined to maintain their own independence against the threat of interference from outside? Will my right hon. Friend seek to mobilise the maximum possible support in the United Nations which has consistently defended that principle and where a resolution has already been put down on this subject? Would this not help to show the strength of feeling in the world that the independence of the people of this territory should be maintained?

There is widespread support for the aspirations of Belize for independence. For example, the group of non-aligned countries which met in Lima some months ago expressed its support and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference did the same. It is not accepted, however, by Guatemala that the doctrine of independence should apply. It asserts that Belize properly belongs to Guatemala, but I think that most countries in the United Nations are moving in favour of self-determination and independence.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that what he said meets with great support in most parts of the House, particularly from hon. Members who have been to Belize?

Will he also accept that a possible visit from a Minister would give great comfort to the democratically elected Government there, and will he say whether he is raising this matter with the Organisation of American States, which in the past, behind the scenes, I understand, has been of some assistance?

Yes, Sir, Our representatives in the various countries represented in the OAS are, of course, informing those Governments of our attitude.

I would certainly consider the possibility of a Minister or others going to Belize, although the people there seem themselves to be stout-hearted in this matter and wish to secure their own independence.

I think we should try, if Guatemala is willing, to make some arrangements with Guatemala as a precursor to independence, to ensure, for example, that Guatemala and Belize could exchange information about economic matters, that they could ensure that the rights of navigation are sustained, and that no third country could start hostilities against either of them without the other being informed. These are various matters which could be ironed out once the principle is accepted that Belize has a right to its independence.

As one who has visited Belize on a parliamentary visit—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—which might mean that I know something about it, unlike most hon. Members here, and can provide the enlightenment they seem to lack, may I say that I strongly endorse the Government's policy in moving to protect the independence of Belize, since the people have made it quite clear on a number of occasions that they wish to be Belizians and not Guatemalans?

It is, I fear, the case that one Guatemalan Minister has said that what Guatemala claims is the territory and not the people, and that if the people who now inhabit Belize do not like it they should move elsewhere. That does not seem to be very conducive to a spirit of cordial negotiations.

I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will agree that the best way for us to avoid trouble in this part of the world is to have a sufficient show of strength so that it will not come to a fight. I am not asking him to reveal military secrets, but will he agree that the best possible way is to convince Guatemala that it is simply not worth trying, rather than having to engage in a long and untidy struggle?

I intimated to the Guatemalan Foreign Minister, when I had a discussion with him at the United Nations in September, that if there were an invasion of a British colony which is seeking to become independent, and whose independence is denied only by the Guatemalan claim, we would fulfil our responsibilities to that colony. I think he is in no doubt about our intention to do so.

While utterly deploring the threatening posture adopted by the Guatemalan Government, which traces its origins back to the situation created by the 1954 CIA-inspired invasion of Guatemala, may I ask my right hon. Friend to say what further steps he is prepared to take to relay world opinion—which is very clear on this issue and is against any Guatemalan invasion—to those concerned?

There will be a debate on this matter in the Fourth Committee of the United Nations which, I think, will start tomorrow. We have intimated to other countries in the United Nations our position and why we have adopted it, and a large number of countries—I believe now 48 in all—have decided to co-sponsor a resolution with which we are jointly associated.

While appreciating the action that the Foreign Secretary and Her Majesty's Government have already taken, may I ask the Foreign Secretary if he will give any indication of what the attitude of Her Majesty's Government would be should there be any future threat to the independence of Belize once that territory becomes independent?

No, Sir. I could not do that at the moment. This is a matter for discussion when Belize is likely to assume her independence, and we should have to consider how we could ensure her future, but I cannot go into that this afternoon.

rose—

Further questions on this matter will be quite in order in Monday's debate.

Business Of The House

May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The business for next week will be as follows.

MONDAY 10TH NOVEMBER—Debate on Foreign Affairs.

Proceedings on the Airports Authority Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.

Motion on the Compensation for Limitation of Prices (Post Office) Order.

TUESDAY 11TH NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Community Land Bill.

WEDNESDAY 12TH NOVEMBER—Consideration of any Lords Amendments which may be received.

Resumed debate on Welsh Affairs, followed by, I hope, Prorogation.

May I make it quite clear and stress that this Prorogation proposal is entirely dependent on the progress of business, not only in this House but as between this House and another place. While I hope that it will take place on Wednesday, I cannot give any guarantee whatsoever that it will be on Wednesday. Subject to this, the next Session will begin, as previously announced, on Wednesday 19th November.

Before calling on the right hon. Member, may I say that I greatly deprecate questions about what is to happen in the next Session. This is a statement of business for next week, and questions about what is to happen next Session are a different matter.

Will the Lord President arrange to have a statement made on the position with regard to Chrysler before we prorogue, whenever that might be?

Certainly I shall convey that to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. I realise that there is concern on both sides of the House about this. As the right hon. Lady knows, I facilitated a number of private meetings yesterday on this, but I understand her concern and will see what can be done next week.

As the Lord Chancellor's approach to the provision of legal representation for people appearing before tribunals is both superficial and complacent, could we have a debate on that subject as soon as possible?

Without agreeing that my right hon. Friend's approach is superficial, I shall certainly bear that matter in mind and discuss it with my right hon. Friend.

Will there be any time next week for a statement to be made on the Report of the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage, this being an urgent subject?

I pointed out last week that not all the evidence on this matter has yet been published, but I have taken this on board as a possible subject for debate in the next Session.

As there might well be a hiatus in getting the Lords amendments on various Bills to this House, will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that there will not only be a debate on Chrysler, which everyone would welcome, but that also, if there is time, there will be a debate on the new industrial strategy spelled out yesterday at the NEDC meeting at Chequers, particularly as many hon. Members on this side of the House consider that so-called strategy to be a repudiation of Labour's policy, as laid down in the 1973 programme and the two manifestos on which we fought the election?

Without agreeing in any way with what my hon. Friend said in the last part of his supplementary question, I point out that the relevant document, "An Approach to Industrial Strategy", is, I think, in the Library and will be published.

I cannot promise any time at all for a debate on this or on the other matter next week, but I have recognised, in replying to the question from the Leader of the Opposition, that there is a great concern on both sides of the House about the Chrysler situation. I shall discuss it and see what can be done next week.

Has the Leader of the House yet heard from the Secretary of State for Trade when he is going to make his long-awaited statement on the crisis in the shoe-manufacturing industry?

No, Sir, but I did say that I regard this as very urgent, and the Government will make a statement as soon as possible on this industry, and on the textile industry as well.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that a quite disproportionate amount of time during the past few weeks has been spent in discussing amendments received from the other place—this will be the case next week as well—and will he, therefore, also agree that some very valuable time could be spent in the future on deciding what the relationship between the two Houses should be, and whether the other House is necessary?

I replied to a question on this matter a few weeks ago. Clearly there is a discernible change in the way in which the other place sees its function, and I think that a great many of us will have to sit down, when this Session ends, and consider what has happened during this Session.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that half an hour ago in Glasgow the liquidator of the Scottish Daily News announced that the paper would cease publication on Saturday and that the men would be out of work? In view of the number of jobs involved and the amount of Government money invested in the project, can the right hon. Gentleman give us a clear assurance that there will be a statement by a Minister early next week?

I cannot give such an assurance. The Government have made their view on the matter clear previously, but I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry what the hon. Gentleman has said.

With reference to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), will my right hon. Friend consider what he said last week about possibly arranging a special debate on unemployment immediately after the prorogation, so that the House can spend a whole day on the subject? It should not be mixed up with a general debate on the Gracious Speech, as normally happens. To be fair to him, he did not give an assurance last week that he would make arrangements for such a debate, but he said that he would consider it. Has he considered it? Is he prepared to give such an assurance today?

If I do not trespass on your ruling on this matter, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the long debate on the Loyal Address comes up the week after next, and that would be an appropriate occasion, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. I understand the concern felt about the matter, which the Government share.

Have not the vast majority of amendments received from another place this Session been either Government amendments or amendments carried by another place with a view to helping the Government to reach a reasonable compromise in very controversial matters?

That is one way of putting it. [Interruption.] I am simply expressing my views. I and many other people in the House and outside believe that the other place is seeing its function in rather a different light under this Labour Government. We must consider that fact coolly and carefully when we see the end of the Session next week.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the exaggerated Press comment in recent days in connection with a Question put down by the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) concerning the cost of acquisition and conversion of Norman Shaw Building, North? Will my right hon. Friend comment?

I read with astonishment the comments of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is not here today. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is to comment on the conditions in which hon. Members work, he might point out that for decades, up to the present day, hon. Members of this House have worked in conditions which no executive—and indeed, no secretary—would tolerate outside the House. Many hon. Members are today working in conditions which can be described only as squalid.

The previous Government decided to restore to its present standard the Norman Shaw Building, which is a very important building quite apart from its present function. I fully support what they did, and I hope that all hon. Members will do so. Therefore, I make no apology for what has been done. I think that the policy followed by the previous Government in this matter was absolutely right. I entirely support it, and I greatly deprecate what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, which was said in order to get a very cheap headline.

Can the Leader of the House assure us that we shall have sufficient time to debate the Post Office Order next week, given the almost chaotic state of the Post Office's finances, the liabilities for taxpayers represented by the Post Office deficits, and the fact that we did not have adequate time to debate the last Order?

The debate is probably limited to an hour and a half by Standing Order No. 73. It will certainly have the hour and a half. I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point.

Will my right hon. Friend consider keeping the House on Thursday, because of the expression of opinion from both sides of the House that the House of Lords has been deliberately trying to wreck Government legislation? There is, therefore, an urgent need not to leave the matter to next Session but to debate here and now the abolition of the House of Lords, which would be welcomed by the whole of the trade union and Labour movement and the vast majority of people outside.

Could we finish off a very good day, having made the decision to end the House of Lords, by discussing Motion No. 742 concerning the failure of the private sector and the suspicion of a City cover-up over the 32 private and 16 public companies currently under investigation? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that would be an eminently satisfactory way of spending Thursday?

[That this House notes with growing concern the official inquiries being conducted by the Department of Trade into the affairs of private companies; calls for these reports to be published promptly to avoid suspicion of a 'City cover-up; notes the chain of City failures embracing some 30 secondary banks, property and insurance companies, including: London and County Securities, Lonrho, London Capital Group, Nation Life, Vehicle and General, Fire Auto and Marine, Jessel Securities, and others; notes the industrial failure of British Leyland, Court Line, Ferranti, Alfred Herbert, etc.; emphasises the damage caused to British manufacturing industry by Slater Walker, recently described in a book publicised by the Sunday Times, as taking capital out of industry in order to fuel stock exchange operations of dubious material and social value; agrees with the former leader of the Opposition that such activities depict ' the unpleasant and unacceptable face of capitalism'; calls upon theGovernment to issue an early and comprehensive statement on the involvement of Slater Walker in the Haw Par and Spydar companies; demands full information about the financial support given by the Bank of England in rescue operations to British companies; and requests an early debate to draw attention to the urgent need to extend Socialist policies to remove key sectors of manufacturing industry and important financial institutions from irresponsible and often incompetent private control.]

My hon. Friend has raised a number of points. I shall not try to answer them all but I shall stick to the first. It may well be necessary for the House to sit on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Monday. I do not know. We shall see how we go. We shall see what the state of play is when we come to the Lords amendments on Wednesday. As I have said a number of times, I think that the other place sees its function rather differently under this Labour Government than it did previously. We must all consider that coolly and carefully when the Session is over.

May I take the Leader of the House back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor)? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make arrangements for whatever Minister he considers most responsible for the demise of the Scottish Daily News to make a statement on it early next week. These matters cannot be just pushed under the carpet and let go. We want an official statement from the Government on it.

As far as I recollect, the right hon. Gentleman was not very enthusiastic in his support for the co-operative when we set it up. The support has appeared only at a very late period in the co-operative's history. I realise that there is concern not only on the Opposition Benches but even more on the Government Benches, and I shall discuss it with my right hon. Friend.

My question was not intended to indicate either approval for or condemnation of the project, questionable as it was from the start. It was simply to say that the demise of the venture should not be allowed to go unnoticed or unsung by the Government.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Normally Parliament opens on a Tuesday, and there are five days for discussion of the Gracious Speech. [An HON. MEMBER: "Six."] We have Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Monday, which makes five, if my mathematics is correct. This year Parliament is to be opened on a Wednesday. Therefore, will the debate go on till the next Tuesday?

That will be a very relevant question for the first Thursday after we come back. I should now put the business motion.

Ordered,

That, at this day's Sitting, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour; that the provisions of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall not apply to the Motion relating to the Community Budget for 1976; and that proceedings on that Motion may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock, though opposed: Provided that such proceedings, if not previously concluded, shall be interrupted at Ten o'clock or three hours after they have been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we start our busines, may I inquire whether you intend to select the amendment in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, which is an expression of opinion from the Back Benches on a Government motion with which we are to deal later today?

I am very willing to oblige the hon. Gentleman by giving him my decision. I do not intend to select the amendment.

Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) about the amendment, a matter of great principle is involved, one which many hon. Members have urged upon Mr. Speaker and discussed with him over the past 10 to 20 years on similar occasions, asking that the question be considered immediately after the business questions period has passed, and not just at the moment when the appropriate debate starts.

On some occasions, Mr. Speaker, you have agreed to consider the matter immediately it is put to you. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead in asking what your intentions are concerning this amendment, which involves a matter of great importance regarding the relations between the United Kingdom and the Common Market. A Select Committee has considered that matter, about which we have little experience. We are in uncharted waters. It is of great importance that hon. Members should know several hours before the debate on the matter starts—not when the debate actually starts—whether the amendment will be called and whether it will be possible to vote on it.

On those practical grounds I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to let the House know your ruling now.

The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) may not have heard me say that I had decided not to select the amendment. I have considered it carefully. I agree that it concerns an important matter, but I do not think I am called upon to give my reasons for selecting or not selecting an amendment. In my view, everything appropriate to the amendment can be said when discussing the motion.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter concerns an important principle. I submit to you that on this occasion it should be possible for you to give your reasons. You have often told us that you are not obliged to give reasons for your ruling. What would be the appropriate occasion, other than the opening of the debate on the matter, to elicit the reasons which have led you to make this decision? May we know the appropriate parliamentary means which those hon. Members—in my submission there are a considerable number of them—who will be dissatisfied with your ruling may use to bring about a change in procedure so that in future such amendments may be voted upon?

I have yet another reason for speaking a second time on this point of order and for asking for the reasons to be elicited. As the House well understands, we are not facing a straightforward Government Front Bench and Opposition Front Bench situation when dealing with this matter. As recent history and the referendum campaign have shown, we have cross-currents of opinion. When cross-currents of opinion exist, there must be some reflection in the House of Commons of how those opinions are either expressed or given voice to in a vote. This is a continuing argument. When the Prime Minister was questioned recently, it was made clear that many of the arguments about the common agricultural policy and its wastefulness had been proved to the hilt. If no message can be given to the country from this House about what groups of hon. Members feel about the need for radical reform of the common agricultural policy, the House will be unable to do its work.

On those grounds, we should on this occasion have an opportunity, in addition to beginning the appropriate debate, to debate this matter and to question your ruling. Can you give us any advice to help us in this situation?

I have listened to the hon. Member carefully. Under the business motion which has been passed, the time for debating this matter has been extended to three hours, which means that there is a greater opportunity for hon. Members to take part and to state their views. Everything that the hon. Gentleman has said in submitting his point of order will be in order when dealing with the main motion.

I turn to the exercise of discretion by the Chair. Until the Standing Orders are altered, it is a matter for my discretion. The House piles upon Mr. Speaker discretion after discretion. Sometimes I wish that what I do and do not select was all laid down by Standing Orders. However, as they stand I have to select, and I do my best. Indeed, on many occasions I have selected amendments to these Orders.

Partly because of the length of debate and partly because of the nature of the amendment, I decided not to select the amendment. I am sorry. It is my fault, but it is a discretion which I have to exercise.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should draw to your attention that some of us are obviously dissatisfied that the amendment is not being called. However, it is worth noting that—according to the information which I have received from members of the Government—had the amendment been called it was likely to have been accepted by the Government. Thus, all the opinions to which my hon. Friend has referred would have been accepted by the House, one presumes, with the motion and, indeed, the amendment. Therefore, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) can rest happy in the knowledge that, whatever the merits of the case, and despite the fact that you, Mr. Speaker, have been unable to find time or to make the necessary decision to call the amendment, we have seemingly forced the Government into accepting the amendment and we have once again scored a moral victory.

After that moral victory, we shall get on to the next business.

Orders Of The Day

Trade Union And Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill

Lords amendments to and in lieu of Commons amendments to a Lords amendment considered.

Lords Amendment ( as amended by Commons Amendments to which the Lords have agreed): After Clause 2, in page 3, line 9, at end insert:

New Clause B

Freedom Of The Press

"B. After section 1 of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following section:—

Charter on freedom of the Press

1A.—(1) If, before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the passing of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1975, there is agreed among parties including employers of journalists, or employers' associations representing such employers, editors or editors' organisations, and trade unions representing journalists a charter containing practical guidance for employers, trade unions, editors and other journalists on matters relating to the freedom of the press, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of that charter.

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1) above, matters relating to the freedom of the press include

(a) the rights of editors and other persons exercising editorial responsibilities to discharge their duties free from any obligation to join a trade union;

(b) the rights of journalists to join a trade union of their choice;

(d) the rights of journalists not to be arbitrarily or unreasonably excluded or expelled from membership of a trade union.

(3) If no such charter has been agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall, after consultation with the Press Council and such of the parties referred to in that subsection, such organisations representing workers, and such organisations representing employers, as he thinks fit, prepare in draft a charter containing rules of conduct designed to secure the rights mentioned in subsection (2) above together with such other matters as may have been agreed among the parties mentioned in subsection (1) hereof, and shall lay the draft before both Houses of Parliament.

(4) If a draft laid under subsection (1) or (3) above is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the charter in the form of the draft.

(5) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above, may be revised from time to time by agreement between such parties as are referred to in subsection (1) above, and the Secretary of State shall lay a draft of the revised charter before both Houses of Parliament.

(6) If a draft laid under subsection (5) above is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the revised charter in the form of the draft.

(7) On issuing a charter or revised charter under subsection (4) or (6) above the Secresary of State shall make by statutory instrument an order specifying the date on which the charter or revised charter is to come into effect.

(8) No criminal proceedings shall lie against any person on account of a contravention of the charter but the obligation to comply with the charter is a duty owed to any person who may be affected by a contravention of it and any breach of that duty by industrial action or otherwise is actionable accordingly subject to the defences and other incidents applying to actions for breach of statutory duty.

(9) In this section—

"article" means any matter printed or intended for printing or broadcast or intended for broadcasting by television or radio;

"industrial action" means—
(a) a concerted stoppage of work by a group of workers, whether (in the case of all or any of those workers) the stoppage is or is not in breach of their terms and conditions of employment and whether it is carried on during or on the termination of their employment, or
(b) any concerted course of conduct which—
(i) is carried on by a group of workers with the intention of preventing, reducing or otherwise interfering with the production of goods or the provision of services, and
(ii) in the case of some or all of them, is carried on in breach of their contracts of employment or (where they are not employees) in breach of their terms and conditions of service.""

Commons Amendment No. 1 to the Lords Amendment: In subsection (2), leave out paragraphs ( a) to ( d) and insert

"such matters as the avoidance of improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment, or criticism, the application of union membership agreements to journalists (and in particular the right of editors to discharge their duties and to commission and publish any article) and the question of access for contributors."

The Lords disagreed to this amendment, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof:

No. 1A: In subsection (2) leave out paragraphs ( a) to ( d) and insert—

"(a) the avoidance of improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment or criticism;

(b) the application of union membership agreements to journalists including the right of journalists not to be unreasonably excluded or expelled from trade unions and to belong to the union of their choice and the right of editors to discharge their duties free from any obligation to join a trade union;

(c) the right of editors to commission and to publish or refuse to publish any material;

(d) the assurance (subject only to editorial discretion) and access to the press of all contributors at all times."

4.5 p.m.

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

I understand that there is general agreement in the House that all the Lords amendments should be debated together and that the Questions should then be put successively at the end of the debate. We shall therefore take at the same time the remaining motions and amendments:

On Lords Amendment No. 1A, in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 1 to Lords amendment,

That this House doth insist on its amendment to the Lords amendment to which the Lords have disagreed.

Commons Amendment No. 2 to the Lords amendment: In subsection (3), in line 7, leave out from "containing" to "and" in line 11 and insert

"such practical guidance as is referred to in that subsection"

The Lords disagree to this amendment, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof:

No. 2A: In subsection (3), in line 7, leave out from "containing" to "and" in line 11 and insert

"practical guidance on the matters specified in subsection (2) above together with such other matters as may have been agreed among the parties mentioned in subsection (1) hereof"

On Lords Amendment No. 2A, in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 2 to Lords amendment,

That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Amendment to the Lords amendment in lieu thereof:

In subsection (3), line 7, leave out from 'draft' to end of subsection and insert ', in accordance with subsection (3A) below, a charter containing such practical guidance as is referred to in subsection (1) above, and shall lay the draft before both Houses of Parliament.

(3A) Where, or so far as, there appears to the Secretary of State to be agreement among the parties referred to in subsection (1) above on any matter relating to the freedom of the press, he shall incorporate in the draft charter such practical guidance as he thinks appropriate to give effect to that agreement; and where, or so far as, there appears to the Secretary of State to be no such agreement on any of the particular matters mentioned in subsection (2) above as included in matters relating to the freedom of the press, he shall incorporate in the draft charter such practical guidance on that matter as he thinks fit'.

Commons Amendment No. 3 to the Lords amendment: after subsection (3) insert:

"( ) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above, shall define its field of operation."

The Lords agree to this amendment, but propose the following amendment thereto:

No. 3 A: At end insert:

"( ) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above, shall provide for the constitution of a body which shall have the functions of—
(a) hearing any complaint by a person aggrieved by a failure on the part of any other person to observe any provision of the charter;
(b) issuing to the parties a declaration as to whether such a complaint is well-founded and if so whether the party aggrieved has suffered material or pecuniary loss by reason of such failure and in what amount, and in such case directing the party in breach to pay that amount; and
(c) securing the publication of its decision.

( ) Any decision by the said body shall be final and conclusive between the parties and any decision of the said body made under paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection shall be enforceable in like manner as an award made in pursuance of an arbitration agreement by an arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1950."

On Lords Amendment No. 3A to Commons Amendment No. 3 to Lords amendment,

As amendments to the Lords Amendment (No. 3A):

In paragraph (6) leave out from 'well-founded' to end of paragraph.

Leave out from "Any decision" to end of subsection.

That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, as amended.

Commons Amendment No. 4 to the Lords amendment: leave out subsections (8) and (9) and insert:

"(8) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a charter which is for the time being in force under this section shall not of itself render him liable to any proceedings, but in any proceedings—
(a) any such charter shall be admissible in evidence, and
(b) any provision of such a charter which appears to the court or tribunal to be relevant to any question arising in those proceedings shall be taken into account by the court or tribunal in determining that question."

The Lords agree to this amendment, but propose the following amendments thereto:

No. 4A: At beginning insert:

"Subject to the terms of paragraphs (c) and (d) hereof"

On Lords Amendment No. 4A to Commons Amendment No. 4 to Lords amendment.

That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

No. 4B, at the end of paragraph (a) leave out "and".

On Lords Amendment No. 4B to Commons Amendment No. 4 to Lords amendment,

That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

No. 4C: After paragraph (b) insert—

"(c) any rule, agreement, act or conduct which is contrary to the provisions of the charter shall be deemed to be contrary to public policy,

(d) nothing in the charter shall be taken to restrict or abridge any right existing by statute or common law."

On Lords Amendment No. 4C to Commons Amendment No. 4 to Lords amendment,

That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

No. 4D: At end insert—

"( ) In this section—

"'editor" includes any deputy of such editor;

"material" includes any matter printed or intended for printing or broadcast or intended for broadcasting by television or radio."

On Lords Amendment No. 4D to Commons Amendment No. 4 to Lords amendment,

That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

I agree with your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that we should debate all the different amendments together. In view of that ruling, perhaps I should first try to describe as briefly as I can the way in which these amendments work and our view about them. In that way I shall try to sort out what is exactly their meaning. I shall do that as briefly as I can before entering into some of the argumentative questions that may arise.

I hope that the Minister will be able to help me. He has just moved that the House should disagree with Lords Amendment No. 1A. Although that may be the only motion he is moving at present, as we are disecussing all the motions and amendments together, will he say at this stage whether it is his intention to move that this House doth disagree with all the remainder of the Lords amendments?

The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) was anticipating the procedure which I intended to follow. However, I thought that I should first indicate the meaning of each amendment in as objective a manner as possible. I then propose to indicate the Government's attitude towards those amendments and to enter into some general arguments covering two or three of the amendments at the same time. In the first few minutes of my opening I shall indicate the Government's view on the different amendments.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 1A relate to the contents of the charter as specified in subsection (2) of the clause. The Commons sent back to the Lords an amended version of subsection (2) after last month's debate. That appears as Commons Amendment No. 1. The Lords have substituted for that amendment their Amendment No. 1A, which spells out specific rights of editors and others, which must be included verbatim in the charter and are not subject to negotiation about details by the parties who may be drawing up the charter. We cannot accept that proposition. Therefore, we want to insist upon Commons Amendment No. 1 which spells out the important matters to be covered in the charter but leaves the parties concerned to decide how they should be covered.

I turn to Commons Amendment No. 2 Lords Amendment No. 2A and the Government's amendment to Lords Amendment No. 2A. Lords Amendment No. 2A seeks to replace restrictions on the matters with which the Secretary of State can deal if he is forced to prepare the charter. He could cover only the important matters detailed in subsection (2) plus whatever else is agreed between the parties. We accept the aim of that proposal but we want to tighten up the drafting. Therefore, we seek to disagree with Lords Amendment No. 2A. Instead, however, of returning to the wording of Commons Amendment No. 2, we want to substitute the new subsection (3A). This retains the substitution of Lords Amendment No. 2A, but improves the drafting. There should be no grounds for controversy on that.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman might have got that wrong. Surely it does not substitute Lords Amendment No. 3A for Lords Amendment No. 2A. It substitutes the words printed on the white paper for the words in No. 2A which are printed on the green paper.

I think that the position is as I stated it. If I have made a mistake, I shall seek to correct it. The hon. Gentleman warned me that he was looking for an obscure point on which he might be able to trip me up. I think he is getting in now knowing that there is no subsequent point of substance which he could take. If I have made a mistake, I shall apologise and seek to correct it, but I do not think that I have made a mistake.

Does the new, substituted phrase come within Section 2(4) of the Parliament Act 1911? Will my right hon. Friend be able to deal with the constitutional implications of that subsection of the substantive Act governing the relationship of the two Houses?

I shall deal with the whole question, because other amendments raise in a stronger form the point made by my hon. Friend.

So that there shall be no confusion, may I say that I was referring to Commons Amendment No. 2, Lords Amendment No. 2A and the Government's amendment to Lords Amendment No. 2A which deals with a matter which is not in dispute between the two Houses. The Government are not in dispute with the purpose of the amendment moved in the other place but they disagree with the drafting of it and seek to correct it. Therefore, there need not be any great controversy about that set of amendments.

I come now to Commons Amendment No. 3, Lords Amendment No. 3A and the Government's amendment to Lords Amendment No. 3A.

Commons Amendment No. 3 is now accepted by both Houses. That amendment deals with the matters set out there. What is in dispute is what should be added to it.

Lords Amendment No. 3A is in part a Government amendment introduced in the Lords setting out that the charter should provide for the establishment of a body within the industry to oversee the workings of the charter. Naturally we want to retain that part of Lords Amendment No. 3A since we moved it in the other place. The Lords have added to our proposal the words after "well-founded" in paragraph (b) of Lords Amendment No. 3A and the new subsection at the end of the amendment. This is Lord Hailsham's amendment. The effect of these additions is that the supervisory body has to award compensation to anyone who has suffered material loss as a result of breach of the charter and that, if necessary, the payment of such compensation awards can be enforced through the High Court. We cannot accept these additions.

Our amendments seek to delete the Hailsham additions and to return Lords Amendment No. 3A to the form in which it was introduced in the other place—namely, the provision of a supervisory body without power to award compensation.

I turn now to Commons Amendment No. 4 and Lords Amendments Nos. 4A, 4B and 4C. Commons Amendment No. 4, providing for the charter to have evidential status in any legal proceedings in which these provisions are relevant, is now accepted by both Houses. That acceptance followed an amendment which we accepted in this House when the matter was before us on a previous occasion. However, what is in dispute is whether anything should be added to it.

Lords Amendments Nos. 4A, 4B and 4C—the Lord Goodman amendments—in effect provide that, although any general failure to observe the charter shall not of itself render anyone liable to legal proceedings, none the less

"any rule, agreement, act or conduct which is contrary to the charter shall be deemed to be contrary to public policy".

We consider that to mean that a failure to observe the charter potentially creates a new means of access to litigation. We cannot accept that. Therefore, we seek to reject Lords Amendments Nos. 4A, 4B and 4C without putting anything in their place and to return to Commons Amendment No. 4.

4.15 p.m.

I now come to the last amendment. Lords Amendment No. 4D inserts an additional subsection in the clause providing definitions of "editor" and "material". The definitions relate to the contents of the charter spelt out in subsection (2).

The definition of "editor" does not deal with the real problem of who may properly be considered an editor. The definition of "material" ranges irrelevantly wide. If the Commons amendment is accepted, the word "material" will not in any event occur in the clause. Therefore, we shall simply seek to disagree with Lords Amendment No. 4D. We believe that the parties making the charter can provide their own more relevant and helpful definitions.

That is all I wish to say about the amendments and, for the convenience of the House, the Government's attitude to them.

Let me summarise the situation. We are proposing that the House of Commons shall reassert its previous views on the matter. We shall send the Bill back to the House of Lords in the form in which it left the House of Commons previously with only two alterations which arise from the points I have already mentioned. One concerns how the Secretary of State, if he had to impose a charter, would be able to operate in doing so and how much he would be restricted by what had been agreed. We do not dissent from the proposal made in the other place on that subject, although we believe that the drafting can be improved. That is not a matter about which the House need have any controversy.

Will the Secretary of State amplify what he means by "irrelevantly wide" in Lords Amendment No. 4D? The words seem clear and straightforward to me. What is irrelevantly wide about it?

I was talking not about Lords Amendment No. 4D but about another amendment. We can deal with that point at another part of our discussion. I was endeavouring to indicate the state of the game under what we are proposing.

The major Government proposal to the House is that we should send the Bill back to the House of Lords in the form in which it left the House of Commons previously. We take that view because we deliberately reached our conclusions then and we do not see any reasons for varying them. However, in order that there shall be no misunderstanding, there are two variations. One, to which I have already referred—not Lords Amendment No. 4D; that is another matter altogether—is how the Secretary of State would be able to exercise his power to establish a charter if the parties had not achieved one. We do not believe that the way in which that is stated should give rise to any controversy.

There is another aspect in which the Bill differs from the form in which it was sent to the other place from this House. We do not believe that this matter should give rise to controversy. We have always considered that if a charter were established—it is central to our idea that such a charter should be established on a completely voluntary basis—it would be highly probable that the parties drawing it up would wish to establish some kind of supervisory body to which breaches or alleged breaches of the charter could be referred. Indeed, the Hetherington Charter, originally proposed by the Editor of The Guardian, included a proposal for a reviewing body. The National Union of Journalists has always assumed that there would be some such body.

Therefore, we thought that it would assist the purpose and remove anxieties, if they were still grounded in any way, to have written into the Bill that a review body should be established to carry out the voluntarily agreed charter. We accept that part of the amendments from the other place for the simple and good reason that we proposed them there. Therefore, I do not believe there should be any great controversy on that subject.

Apart from those two alterations, one of which is of a minor character and the other, although important, is one which I think strengthens what we were proposing before, what we are asking the House to do—it is a matter of major importance to our debate—is to underline afresh the views that we reached on this subject a few weeks ago. We want the other place to know clearly as a result of our votes this evening that the House of Commons has deliberated on this matter again and has reasserted the views that we held on the previous occasion, that there is no departure in any sense from the principles that we have enunciated on this matter on previous occasions or any departure from the amendments that we accepted after the discussion on a previous occasion, and that we accept the amendments in the form in which we had them before.

I turn from the detailed parts of some of the amendments—although I shall come back to some of these in a moment because they are important—to some of the more general arguments. I do not propose to traverse them all again, and I am sure that everybody will be relieved to hear me say that. I should like to emphasise the main reasons why we are so much opposed to the way in which the House of Lords has proposed to deal with this matter.

There are three major grounds of principle and practice why we are opposed to what the Lords are asking us to do. First, we do not believe that the question of Press freedom—we do not in any sense question the importance of it—in relation to a Trade Union Bill can be divorced from industrial relations altogether. What the Lords are seeking to do in their amendment—this has been the objection to their amendment and to other people's proposals throughout—means that they have not taken account of industrial relations aspects of the subject, and we have insisted that they must do so. It is because they have not taken account of those industrial relations aspects that they have been misled in the proposition that we return, as far as journalists and newspapers are concerned, to the kind of provisions that we had in the Industrial Relations Act 1971. That is our first major objection—the way in which the Lords propose to deal with this matter. They have not taken into account the effect on industrial relations if they try to deal with the matter in this way.

When the right hon. Gentleman talks about industrial relations aspects not being able to be separated from Press aspects, he is saying that the newspaper industry must be treated in the same way as all kinds of manufacturing industry?

No, I am not saying that. Strangely enough, I was saying exactly what I did say. I was saying that it was not possible to divorce this question from its industrial relations aspects. I shall refer later to some of the concern, alarms and anxieties that people have expressed on the question of the right to write freely. I do not underrate the importance of Press freedom or the right of people to write for newspapers. All I am saying is that one cannot deal with this question and leave out of account all the consequences for industrial relations.

Our objection to the proposals that have come from the Lords is that they have not applied themselves to this problem, and once again they come back to the House of Commons and say "Please will you write into the law of the land once again the kind of provision that we had in the 1971 Act?" It is true that they are applying this provision to only one industry, or only one union, but that does not make it any the better. In fact, it makes it all the worse and makes it all the more discriminatory. That is what the Lords are seeking to do, and that is our objection to what they have proposed.

The second objection is practical but none the less good. We believe that what the Lords propose would be counterproductive to the interests of Press freedom. Their proposal would not achieve the results that they want. Indeed, it would achieve a caricature of the results they want. I do not question the genuine desire of the Lords to protect Press freedom. I do not question their desire to see a charter established, even though some of them have rather belatedly come round to the idea that that is a good thing. But now that they have come round to it, I am not questioning their good faith.

I am.

I am sure that my hon. Friends will speak for themselves. There are one or two of them whose motives I question, but I am in an appeasing mood at the moment and I hope that it will last.

I believe that the proposals put forward by the Lords would be counter-productive to achieving what they apparently intend, because if we wrote into the law all these legal provisions about compensation, injunctions, sanctions, and all the paraphernalia of the 1971 Act, and if we said in advance to the parties "You go away and draw up a charter", the first consequence of that would be that we should not have a charter drawn up by the parties concerned. The NUJ would not have to be militant, awkward or objectionable to say "We do not think it fair that parts of this charter should be written into the law before we even start. Let us have open discussions on them. Let us try to draw up the charter properly". It would be especially valid for the NUJ to make that claim, since it has shown itself more eager than other parties to go ahead with the charter.

The consequence would be strange if the extraordinary were to happen and the House of Commons were to agree with the Lords in their proposal. There would not be a charter agreed between the parties. For several months no progress would be made, and under the provisions of the Bill the Secretary of State, whoever he might be, would have to be charged with drawing up the charter and pushing it through. I have never been in favour of the idea that the way to have a charter properly drawn up is for the Secretary of State—even the most beneficent and wise Secretary of State—to draw it up. I should prefer the charter to be drawn up by the parties concerned, but the proposals put forward by the Lords would make it almost certain—not absolutely certain—that the charter would have to be drawn up by the Secretary of State. A charter drawn up in such circumstances would be much less likely to be effective in protecting the freedom of the Press and the right to print than a charter that was willingly agreed by the people working in the industry.

My second objection to what the Lords are proposing is that it would be counterproductive. It would not achieve the result they want, and it could cause considerable disruption inside the industry itself. I believe that if the House of Commons was unwise enough—I do not consider such an outlandish possibility—to agree with the Lords and this proposal went through, the situation would arise in which we should not get a charter, in which relationships between different sections of the industry would be poisoned and in which the possibilities of returning to a more sensible state of affairs would be greatly impeded.

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the NUJ will not agree to a charter that is enforceable? If that is so, what confidence does that give us in a charter that is unenforceable?

Again, I was not saying what the hon. Gentleman has put into my mouth. I was saying exactly what I said, which was quite different. I shall come to some of the particular proposals to which I think not only the NUJ should not agree but to which anybody who believes in freedom should not agree. What I am saying—it is a reasonable proposition—is that if we want to get a charter between the different parties in the industry, between journalists, proprietors and editors, the less we lay down absolutely binding conditions in advance, the better it will be. That applies not only to journalists but to editors and proprietors as well. One can give an indication, as we have in the Bill, of some of the subjects which should be covered, but to lay down binding provisions in advance, particularly if one attaches to them, as the Lords have done, the whole possibility of sanctions, is most unwise.

4.30 p.m.

But there is another reason and in some respects an even more powerful one why I believe that it would be most unwise for the House to alter our previous view. The events in the House of Lords, so far from having improved the case, have greatly undermined it. That is why I wish to state clearly our conclusion on its debates on 3rd November. The third condemnation of this set of amendments, which goes to the root of Parliament's responsibilities for what goes on to the statute book, is that those proposing the Lords amendments have not thought through, certainly have not explained, their legal effects.

There is confusion in the public mind and the minds of Members of Parliament and of their Lordships about the effects. In the Government's view this confusion is well justified both because the effects, as opposed to the desired outcome, have never been explained and because these effects are highly unpredictable.

The first amendment, for example, prescribing the contents of the charter, has been considered by some to be a harmless spelling out of desirable objectives to be achieved. But that is not so. It inserts what amount to legal rights into the charter, rights which have no parallel for people working in any other industry, some of which state far-reaching rights of a kind which have never been contemplated before—for example, the absolute and unqualified right of an editor to publish what he pleases in any circumstances.

I wonder whether the Lords or hon. Members have examined in full the implications of these new statutory rights to compensation and new potential bases for legal action which would be created if we accepted this proposal. Many examples could be given of the consequences of combining the unqualified right of the editor to print any material, as is given in one subsection, with the sanctions in the other parts of the Lords amendments, whether in compensation or by invoking the provision that any act or conduct against the charter would be contrary to public policy.

If those two parts of the operation are taken together, they could have this consequence. In matters which at present most people do not consider to be governed by any absolute right of the editor to print, he would be given an absolute right to do so. For example, what about references to the Press Council? Are such references, which might interfere with the editor's right in some way, to be contrary to public policy? They might be considered to be.

I see that the Editor of The Times yesterday made, if I may say so, an estimable and courageous speech about the recrudescence of the most miserable forms of gossip-mongering journalism. I agree with what he said about the wretched way in which one or two newspapers are seeking to introduce this kind of journalism again. Most journalists think that the whole business is utterly depraved and unworthy of their profession. I am glad that the Editor of The Times should speak out so strongly against it.

But if someone should seek to refer such matters to the Press Council and if the Council should start or seek to interfere with the absolute right of the editor to print any material under the charter, as provided by the House of Lords, that might be considered contrary to public policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I perfectly understand the concern and alarm expressed by Conservative Members. They have only just heard how outrageous are the propositions which have come to us from another place. These matters have been fully before them if they had wanted to consider them.

Many editors have entered into agreements not to engage in cheque-book journalism. Most people would agree that that is an advance—

It has nothing to do with this.

Unfortunately, the Lords did not apply themselves to the matter. In the first part of the amendment they say that the right of the editor to publish any material shall be absolute and unqualified, and in the second part they say that any act or conduct which interferes with that could be held to be contrary to public policy. So I understand the hon. Member's sense of outrage, because he has not been informed by his noble Friends what nonsense they were sending to us. But this is what they have sent.

If this legislation is supposed to have these dire consequences, and if the Government are as anxious to avoid a clash with the other place as no doubt the Secretary of State is, would he care to explain why the head of the legal system in this country and a member of the Cabinet—the Lord Chancellor—failed to warn their Lordships of any of these dire consequences which the Secretary of State is now inventing as he goes along?

The hon. Gentleman is completely misinformed about what the Lord Chancellor said, because he has not studied the matter.

Yes I have.

If the hon. Gentleman will wait for a moment, I shall explain exactly how it occurs. The Lord Chancellor did in fact refer, in the strongest terms, to exactly the point I am making—that it was impossible for the House to incorporate such uncertain law into the law of the land and that to think that we were performing any service—

That is not the point I took to the Secretary of State. The Lord Chancellor did not give a warning about the dire consequences of a particularly lurid kind that the Secretary of State has held, in terrorem, over the House. It is wrong of the right hon. Gentleman to say that he did.

If the hon. Gentleman will wait, he will get it right. Of course I understand the anxieties of Conservative Members in this matter, because these questions have not been expounded to them—partly because it is the first time that we in this House have been confronted with the absurdity of the combination, presented to us by the House of Lords, of first specifying rights which editors are to have in terms which are not qualified in any sense and which go beyond the amendment that we agreed in this House with this obscure reference to public policy, to which the Lord Chancellor referred in the most specific terms.

Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman is basing his case on what the Lord Chancellor said, I would be only too happy to enlist his support for us on our amendment. The Lord Chancellor condemned these Lords amendments precisely because of their obscurity as well. It is the combination of the two which I say leads to this result.

Where did he say it?

I shall give the column number. I shall deal with the matter. The hon. Gentleman will find—

I mean his reference to gossip-mongers.

Not gossip-mongers, no. What I was giving—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will follow the point—was an illustration of how the new kind of law that the Lords are trying to foist upon us will have these consequences.

There are many other examples that I could give of practical consequences which would follow from the combination offered to us. What I am saying about the Lord Chancellor—this anticipates another part of my argument, but since hon. Gentlemen are so eager to follow the point I shall deal with it now—is that if they will read columns 262 and 263 of the Official Report they will see not only that the Lord Chancellor underlined how blurred and uncertain was the law proposed but also that Lord Goodman failed to deal with the matter in his reply.

Before I go further, however, let me deal with Lord Hailsham's amendment. That provides for compensation to those who suffer loss as a result of a breach of the charter.

The right hon. Gentleman gave us a reference which, so far as I can see, is completely wrong. Can he correct it?

The hon. Gentleman has not followed the argument. I shall not repeat it for his benefit if it is not necessary for the others. I am talking about 3rd November—

There is no such reference. The right hon. Gentleman said Column 262.

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I misread the number of the column—a very grave offence to which I plead absolutely guilty. I should have referred to columns 962 and 963. Conservative Members will there see the Lord Chancellor's views on the obscurity of the amendments which those in another place are seeking to force upon us.

The columns that the right hon. Gentleman has quoted contain the Lord Chancellor's reply to the amendments, but we are not dealing with the contents of the charter. Their Lordships dealt with the contents of the charter, but the particular matter which has been raised was dealt with by their Lordships a fortnight earlier. When on that occasion was such a warning given? The right hon. Gentleman may well be guilty of misrepresentation.

I am not misrepresenting anyone. The hon. Gentleman must follow the argument. This is the first time that the House has been confronted with the combination of the alteration as included in subsection (2). That combination raises the issue of public policy as featured in Lord Goodman's amendment. It is that combination which leads to the consequences I have described.

Before proceeding with the argument, I must refer to Lord Hailsham's amendment, which provided for compensation for those who suffer loss as a result of a breach of the charter. It is alleged not to involve the courts and to provide a simply remedy for a grievance. But have their Lordships considered the range of circumstances in which rights to compensation should be created? They cannot have done so, because those circumstances will depend on the charter's contents, which nobody yet knows. It seems that their Lordships have not fully taken into account the large sums of compensation which could be involved as the amendment does not provide for compensation only to individuals.

Although the issue of whether or not the charter had been breached would not normally come before the courts, the powers of the High Court could be applied to enforce payment of compensation. Those powers include sequestration of funds and all the associated consequences. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Some Conservative Members say "Hear, hear". Do they want to land us back in the situation that prevailed in 1971? It seems that Lord Hailsham proposes that we should return to those days. The House has never accepted that view. I hope we shall repudiate it today.

I come again to the point which has caused such annoyance to Conservative Members. Lord Goodman's amendment provided that any rule, agreement, act or conduct which contravened the charter's provisions should be deemed to be contrary to public policy. It was the most uncertain amendment of all in its legal effect. Lord Goodman never attempted an adequate explanation of how it would work. He said that he was merely revivifying and fertilising common law.

Some people thought that the amendment created no new rights of action and, therefore, saw it as a useful presentational formula that gave added weight but not enforceability to the charter. That was not the Government's view or the Lord Chancellor's view, nor would it seem to have been Lord Goodman's view. The noble Lord made his intention plain by providing that a failure to observe the charter would not by itself render anyone liable to proceedings, subject to what was provided in his amendment about contravention of public policy. The fact that the courts are directed to consider any rule, agreement, act or conduct—that covers just about everything that anyone may do—which offends the charter as being contrary to public policy may mean that they will have to consider that as a basis for common law action. That in practice may mean an injunction restraining whatever is breaching the charter's provisions, about which as yet we know nothing regarding the exact provisions. What the courts would make of this possibility is not known, but such precedent as there is suggests that the courts could have a field day in creating judge-made law based on breaches of public policy.

4.45 p.m.

I repeat what I said before—namely, that in stating that view and by presenting us with apparently serious proposals their Lordships have shown that their method of dealing with this matter is uncertain and blurred. At one moment, advocates of the amendment in another place were saying that it was a small matter and that no one should have any worry about accepting it, yet on other points they were saying that this was the ark of the covenant and a central doctrine that we must accept. They did not sort it out in another place, and we have to sort it out here. Whatever else might be done, it would be a disgrace to the British legislature if law of this character were to be placed upon the statute book. If that happened we would be handing over a blurred and uncertain law to the courts and the judges. I am sure that their condemnation would be most severe.

If the House takes together all the proposals which have come from another place, one sees that the rewriting of the so-called rights at the beginning have been dealt with in a manner highly objectionable to one of the parties to the charter. Lord Hailsham has proposed an extreme form of sanction which could lead to the sequestration of funds and to all the difficulties that we know about from earlier experience. The obscurity of Lord Goodman's method must be apparent. Anyone who looks at these proposals together should remember that they are supposed to have come from a revising Chamber—a body that is supposed to produce law in its most perfect and immaculate state. To me, their Lordships' proposals look more like a dog's dinner on a lordly dish. I hope that the amendment will be sent back to another place in that spirit.

As the right hon. Gentleman is making so much of the fact that the terms of the charter are as yet uncertain and that the terms are clearly all-important to this legislation, would it not be better if he were to withdraw this legislation until the terms of the charter become known in a precise form?

I hope that we shall get the charter. What we are proposing will enable a charter to be drawn up. That will be possible if we can get the Bill through the House without all the sanctions being applied in advance. That is what we are suggesting. If the hon. Gentleman has been converted to wanting a charter, he could assist in that purpose. However, I believe that he has misunderstood what I have said.

The uncertainty does not arise only because the charter is not in being. Uncertainty also arises because Lord Goodman has sought to write into this legislation a provision concerning public policy which does not bear any resemblance to any other law that we have. Their Lordships did not specify how that provision should be applied. It seems that they are at sixes and sevens as regards the consequences of that provision. I am saying that it would be an absurdity for us to suggest that we could deal with this matter properly on the basis of such an obscure and uncertain provision. Therefore, even if there were not a series of reasons for rejecting their Lordships' proposals, there would be good enough reason for the House of Commons, as a revising Chamber, to say that it is not prepared to pass legislation of this character.

Although urging the House to stand by the doctrine that we enunciated on previous occasions, I believe that we reached a sensible conclusion about how the whole matter could be dealt with in our previous discussion. I understand that the ferment and discussion are real. I believe that they derive from genuine anxieties and fears among many people throughout the country.

The most widespread anxiety—I do not believe that it is legitimate in that I do not think that the danger is present in anything like the degree described—is that in some form this legislation, which is being introduced mainly for the purpose of repealing the 1971 Act, may have some unforeseen and terrible consequences for those who contribute to the Press, leaving aside those who are employed by the Press. The provisions of the charter, like union membership agreements and closed shop agreements, apply not to contributors, but to employees in the industry. But that does not altogether remove the fear.

I illustrate the situation by quoting what Lord Goodman said in the House of Lords. There was some controversy between him and Lord Gardiner about "Lady Chatterley's Lover". Lord Gardiner had appeared for the defence in that case, and Lord Gardiner said that it had nothing to do with that book, but he then said

"What has to do with this matter is that if the late D. H. Lawrence was here and wanted to write for the Press…".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3rd November 1975; Vol. 365, c. 940.]

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that speeches in another place maybe quoted in a current Session only when they are speeches by Members of the Government. If the Secretary of State for Employment is to be allowed to quote a speech, even a speech of Lord Goodman, may we be free to quote further extracts from his speech? I shall be happy to quote extracts from the admirable speech of my noble and learned Friend Lord Hailsham.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. Speeches in the other place may only be paraphrased.

I apologise for having quoted directly from remarks in the other place. Lord Goodman said that if this Bill had existed in earlier years, the chances were that D. H. Lawrence would not have been able to write for the Press. There is no truth in that allegation. It is a fact that in practice D. H. Lawrence was often censored, but he was not censored by the NUJ. He was censored by publishers, the courts and others, and that prevented his saying and printing what he wanted.

Times have changed.

Those are the realities of the matter. It is useless for anybody to say that the problem of dealing with the freedom of the Press can be dealt with solely by action directed against the NUJ. This matter has to do with the whole of the Press. That is why we suggested, as indeed did the NUJ, that the matter would be best dealt with by a charter by which people could sit down together and approach the matter in a sensible and civilised way. That is right, and we want to go ahead on those lines.

However, it appears that the House of Lords wants to create uncertainty. That does it no credit, since the result of their Lordships' proposals is to interfere with the establishment of such a charter and thereby, with the consequential controversy, with the establishment by those concerned of a proper system of governing and arranging for the maximum freedom. If such a charter fails, I agree that the House of Commons, with the assistance of the House of Lords—if the House of Lords is still there—should see what should be done in that situation. That is a very much better way in which to seek to protect freedom than to write into legislation in advance a whole series of provisions preventing any such charter from ever seeing the light of day.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the provisions would apply not to contributors but only to employees. Will he repeat that remark and give an assurance that it will be part of the charter?

I have said that the union membership agreements do not apply to contributors. What would happen to contributors under our proposals and those of the NUJ is that there would be a clause in the charter dealing with access to contributors. This has never been questioned by the NUJ. I appreciate the importance of the matter. All I am saying is that the proposal by the House of Lords for dealing with the provisions, so far from assisting this matter, will make it much more difficult. Their Lordships have written into the Bill—and this is another of our objections—a provision that would prevent the operation of the industrial activities of the NUJ. That will not be acceptable, because it will injure the establishment of a proper provision guaranteeing freedom.

Will my right hon. Friend answer a question put to him on the last occasion when the House discussed these matters? If the other place persists in disagreeing with our proposals, or insists on adding further amendments or alterations to the Bill, what will the Government do with the other place? Will he give the House an unequivocal answer?

I am happy to conclude my remarks by answering my hon. Friend's question. I cannot give him an answer to all hypothetical questions, any more than I was able to do so on a previous occasion. The House of Commons on the previous occasion had a serious debate on this matter. We discussed various amendments from different parts of the House and we reached our conclusions and sent them to another place. The House of Commons reached its conclusions after lengthy deliberation. The Government's desire is that, in the main, on all matters of principle we should reiterate the views that we expressed on the previous occasion. When we sent the Bill to the other place—

rose—

I gave way to the hon. Gentleman earlier.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for doing so again. Would he spell out in clear terms the position of employees who are members of the Institute of Journalists?

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely it is contrary to the rules of the House for the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), when my right hon. Friend is still answering an intervention, to interrupt with a gratuitous and silly remark.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Will he please state what is to be the position of newspaper employees who are members of the IOJ?

That question does not arise at this point in my remarks. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) must learn the procedures of the House sufficiently to realise that, when a Minister is seeking to answer another hon. Member, he should not intervene.

The right hon. Gentleman gave way to me.

The hon. Gentleman was interrupting and I was seeking to enable the House to proceed with the discussion. I have no doubt that the IOJ will be able to contribute to the talks about a charter in the same way as will other bodies concerned. That is the right way in which to proceed, but it would be wrong to try to deal with the matter by writing into law provisions that would only lead to greater difficulties.

Perhaps I may now be allowed to reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee). I hope that the House of Lords will treat seriously what is sent back to it from the House of Commons on this subject. We reached our conclusions on an earlier occasion and we sent them back to the House of Lords. What the Lords have sent back to us is a series of unworkable provisions. I hope that this House will reject them, and I hope that the other place will consider seriously what has been said on this subject, after due deliberation, by the elected part of this legislature.

I hope that the Lords will take that into account and that we shall not be faced with the kind of difficulties that would arise if they insisted upon their rights, or sought to make their rights superior to those of an elected House of Commons. It is this elected House of Commons and not any other body that should govern the country.

5.0 p.m.

I begin by apologising to the House for the fact that I have not been present to hear the debates of the past two weeks on this subject. The more I have listened to today's debate the more sympathy I have felt with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who said that this was a matter which should be put to the Royal Commission. That was something we suggested a long time ago. We were then told that there was a paramount need to enact this measure at the earliest moment.

There have been six months, from 15th April onwards, during which time there was not a single day of discussion in the House on this subject. Suddenly, in the overspill period, we are presented with Lords amendments, amendments to Lords amendments, amendments, to the Lords amendments as amended in the House of Commons and so on. The Secretary of State talks of the present Lords amendments being a disgrace to the legislature. The real disgrace is that the House of Commons is being asked to take such vital decisions at the very last minute.

It is clear that in all the deliberations that have taken place in the House of Lords the aim has been at all times to be as conciliatory as possible. If anyone reads the debates, coming fresh to the issue as I did—having been away for two weeks—the overriding impression is of the House of Lords attempting to be conciliatory and to understand the true position of the Commons. It is only because the House of Lords can write its own rules on these matters that we are able to discuss the vital issue of the freedom of the Press.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is not perhaps the best Bill in which to consider matters of Press freedom. That is not the fault of the Opposition or the House of Lords; it is the fault of the Government for not thinking things through when they introduced this measure. It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that Press freedom in relation to this Bill cannot be divorced from the industrial relations aspects and that therefore the industrial relations aspects must be paramount in the Bill. That might be fair enough if we were dealing only with industrial relations.

The Secretary of State knows that this is an issue involving Press freedom—a freedom which has changed very much over the years. It is not a matter, as he tried to make out, of D. H. Lawrence being prevented from writing for certain papers 40 or 50 years ago as a result of censorship, or because editors would not publish. We have got beyond that stage today. The situation on such matters now is totally different. It is probably rather better in some respects, in others probably worse. The right hon. Gentleman does not prove his case by going back to what D. H. Lawrence could have done.

I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has come to this debate. It was seven months ago that I asked him a question that I shall repeat now. He said, seven months ago, that he would answer the question later. He did not tell us how much later. Since we are talking about how things are today and what it is that menaces the freedom of the Press, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House what he thinks ought to be done to protect editorial staff from the power of the owners of the Press?

In this context I refer to Early-Day Motion No. 743 which will provide the right hon. Gentleman with one, but only one, example of the kind of horrendous monopoly power enjoyed by a few people over a large number of staff. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this question before he finishes his speech? He has had seven months' notice.

Order. I appeal to hon. Members not to use interventions for the purpose of making a speech.

The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that question only too well. He talks about the power of the owners. I notice that in the last debate there was a good deal of talk about millionaires. That term is always used to mean someone worse than an ordinary owner. The hon. Gentleman has forgotten about the 1,300 local papers which give a widespread coverage of all events. He knows quite well that it would be possible—certainly the Institute of Journalists, among others, has said it would like to see this—to draw up a charter which would deal with problems of proprietorial interest. This is surely another reason why it would be better to allow the Royal Commission to give its views on this important subject, and why we should leave the debate on this Bill until that is done. If that course had been followed a year ago we might not have found ourselves in this position today.

Is it not clear that the only threat of monopoly today arises not from the proprietors but from the position of the National Union of Journalists?

I was about to quote from a quotation I used during the Committee stage of this Bill in January of this year. This is a passage from a letter I received:

"I should add to that the thought that freedom of speech, which is the public civil right that newspapers exercise as freedom of the Press, is too important to be left to the quite imperfect control of contemporary industrial relations machinery. It is pretty inefficient at industrial relations, let alone protecting freedom of speech."—Official Report, Standing Committee E, 16th January 1975; c. 155.]

That is a fairly true reflection of the issue with which we have to concern ourselves today.

The Secretary of State began by saying that there was no need for a charter or anything to be written into the Bill in any way. He would have had a charter outside the Bill. Then their Lordships, under the auspices of Lord Houghton, put a charter into the Bill. From having taken the view that their Lordships should keep their lordly noses out of the affair the right hon. Gentleman has been glad, recently, to have those lordly noses interfering. There is already exceptional treatment for the Press in a possible closed shop situation. We have breached the principle of non-interference. No one is suggesting that in dealing with a closed shop situation in the engineering industry, the ball-bearing industry or any other industry, we should have a specific charter drawn up.

The House agrees that there should be a charter to protect the interests of outside contributors to the Press. We note that the situation in the Press is now the subject of exceptional treatment. In laying down the charter, are we making any impact if we do not impose an obligation that the charter should be kept, and, if the charter is not being kept, that the injured party should be the recipient of damages? That is the crucial issue. In previous debates the right hon. Gentleman made out the greater part of his case on that issue.

The Opposition accept much of the argument on the closed shop. However, we believe that the Press is an exception. If there is to be a charter, it must be backed by a remedy. I do not use the word "sanction"; I prefer the word "remedy". There is no point in having the charter unless, when the charter is broken, there is a remedy for the aggrieved person. The Secretary of State maintains that that is the wrong way.

It is extraordinary how keen the Labour Party is to legislate on practically every subject except one of this importance and character, which involves the rights and freedom of an individual and the rights of the Press. I do not understand the position of the right hon. Gentleman. Today he spent a good deal of time attempting to stir up opinion against legal provisions. I hope that he has read what Lord Wigoder said in another place on that matter.

In the past, the National Union of Journalists accepted the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act on the question of the ballot. The NUJ agreed to register under the Act. There is no strong feeling in the NUJ against the provisions which we suggest and which the other place has written into the Bill. I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman said that it would not be possible to draw up a satisfactory charter if the legal powers were included beforehand. He said that the NUJ, the majority of whose members are sensible men—

And women.

—was not prepared to draw up a sensible charter, on the ground that if the charter was broken an aggrieved person could receive an award under the rules of arbitration. That would place that person in the financial position which it enjoyed before the agreement took place.

Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that just as the industry was able to build the machinery of the Press Council, there is an equally good chance that if we get off the back of the industry it can build this charter sensibly of its own volition and, by agreement, build in the safeguards which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to insert?

5.15 p.m.

I hope that that will happen and that the industry will be able to build in those safeguards. The arbitration award should be made only as a last resort. Before that stage is reached, application must be made to a body which, presumably, will comprise members of the industry. There is a charter which consists of rules which have already ben drawn up. There will be a body the rules for which will be drawn up. If a body consisting of representatives of the industry draws up its own rules there is a presumption that the industry will try to make the system work. Only in the most exceptional cases, after the preliminary procedure has broken down, will the body decide whether a person has been aggrieved. The person most likely to be aggrieved would be an editor who had fallen foul of the NUJ. In that case the body, having drawn up its own charter, will have adjudicated the case and come to the decision whether there was an aggrieved party. In that case it is reasonable that the aggrieved party should have a right of compensation to put himself or herself back into the position that he or she enjoyed before the action was taken against them. That is not asking a great deal.

I do not think that Parliament should leave this issue open. It is the duty of Parliament to lay down rules and to provide the opportunities which will be available to an aggrieved person. I do not believe that we should leave the procedure to chance. If we leave it to chance, an innocent person may suffer before Parliament does anything about it. That is borne out by the fact that when discussing such matters Ministers have said, "Let us see how we get on. If it does not work, we shall do something about it". The Opposition believe that it is the duty of Parliament to do something about the situation in advance, and not leave it to chance. We hope that the rules and the charter will be properly enforced and obeyed, but we do not think that we should leave matters to chance. That is not the rôle of Parliament.

Any sensible legislature would have allowed the Royal Commission to give its view in advance. We should then have had the views of the Royal Commission on the matter on which to make an assessment, form an opinion and draft a Bill. If that had happened we should be in a much better position to give our views on this subject. I bitterly regret that that has not happened.

I do not think that the legal problems involved in the Lords amendments are as great as the Minister would have us believe. The Lord Chancellor did not raise these points in Committee. Today the Minister has been nit-picking over the legalities, which is unusual for him. No one would think that he was too concerned with the finer points of the law. I notice that he had to keep to his brief fairly carefully when he dealt with this point, and I have no doubt that he has been well advised by the lawyers in his Department. However, I am not certain that the lawyers in his Department, or, for that matter, those in the Attorney-General's Department, are any more capable than are the noble Lords, Lord Hailsham and Lord Goodman. On occasions, I have known of Government Departments having to seek outside advice in order to come to decisions. For that reason, we need not take too seriously the legal nit-picking of the Secretary of State.

I understand fully if the right hon. Gentleman makes a comment on my legal qualifications; I do not quarrel with him on that score. But he must not dismiss the Lord Chancellor in the same breath as he dismisses me. If he will refer to col. 363 of the Official Report of the debate in the other place—[Interruption.]—I apologise; I should have said col. 963—the right hon. Gentleman will see there that the Lord Chancellor said:

"In my submission, the concept is not only unusual but fraught with difficulty and obscurity, and one is bound to ask where it would lead in practice."—[Official Report,House of Lords, 3rd November 1975; Vol. 365, c. 963.]

There are two column in Hansard on the subject, so let no one vote in this matter without knowing the view of the highest legal authority in the country on the subject.

But when the Secretary of State began his remarks on the subject, he was not talking about aspects of public policy; he was discussing the charter itself. The right hon. Gentleman having misread the column number in Hansard three times, we were trying to discover where, in the earlier debate, the Lord Chancellor had commented on this when the matter was relevant and was the one before the House. Of course, the Lord Chancellor did not comment on it at that time. He commented on the public policy aspects at a later stage.

This is again a case of the Secretary of State, by the sheer power of his vocabulary and his memory, trying to put across to this House a view that is not acceptable to the House of Lords and not acceptable to my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Looking through the Official Report of these debates, I noticed mat the right hon. Gentleman claimed that as a result of his activities there had been a marked improvement in industrial relations. What profit is it to the man who is now unemployed if he is told that the improvement in industrial relations has been brought about by this Government? What profit is it to the millions of men and women who are enjoying a lower standard of living today than they were 18 months ago? Is that to the credit of this Government?

The problem about the Secretary of State is that he is a very good talker but precious little else. What this Parliament and legislature is being asked to accept today is another example of the right hon. Gentleman using his viciousness against the Industrial Relations Act and refusing to face the facts on the issue of Press freedom.

I believe that the attitude of their Lordships has been one of conciliation. They have proved themselves extremely valuable as a revising Chamber. They have been able to write into this Bill certain parts that, under our rules, we in this House are not allowed to write into it. But I hope and pray that they will stand on their position of the individual requiring a remedy. Surely the individual is the person whom Parliament should respect and have uppermost in its mind when legislating. If the House of Lords does not stand firm on the rights of the individual, it will not be doing its duty to our country—nor will the reputation of Parliament be enhanced.

For the moment, I shall refrain from taking up any of the unctuous remarks of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) during the course of which, among other matters, he referred to the revising virtues of the House of Lords. However, one observation of his which I thought somewhat naive came when he said that one went to the courts as a last resort. Unfortunately, precisely the same argument was once used by David Maxwell-Fyfe in relation to capital punishment when he said that, unless the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords both went mad, there could be no mistakes and that it was fantasy to talk of mistakes of that kind. Not long after that, we had the Christie-Evans case, which exploded that concept completely.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tended to skate over one or two matters, and perhaps I may be allowed to draw attention to them. The first is a technical matter relating to the operation of the Parliament Acts and the relationship between the two Houses. It is clear from my researches that it is nearly 30 years since a piece of legislation was sent backwards and forwards between the two Houses to quite the same extent as has occurred in this case. The last occasion was in 1947, and it concerned the Transport Bill, but I do not think that the matter that I wish to raise with my right hon. Friend was ever satisfactorily resolved, because in the last analysis the House of Lords gave way and accepted the amendments that this House made.

As I understand it, the general view of the law is that on matters that are rejected outright the Parliament Act operates and, as abridged by the 1949 Act, operates within a defined and restricted period. I shall say a word or two presently about the effect that the House of Lords is having on our legislative programme in what it likes to call its revising capacity. However, I am concerned now with the operation of the substantive part—

Order. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) is going outwith the scope of the subject being debated. I will not allow a debate on the future of the House of Lords. That is not under discussion during these proceedings. The hon. Gentleman is dealing with the relationship between this House and the other place. That is not relevant to this discussion.

With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was not about to deal with the future of the House of Lords, and I am sorry if I gave that impression. What I was about to do, which I suggest is relevant, was to refer to Section 2(4) of the Act, which deals broadly with the position where there is a series of amendments and new clauses. So far as I know, that is a matter that has never been properly resolved. When further amendments are made, however ingeniously interwoven, unless and until a situation is arrived at in which both Houses are in agreement—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating a situation that has not yet arisen. So far, we do not know what the other place will do with our recommendations. Therefore, what the hon. Gentleman is dealing with now does not arise at this juncture.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The issue has arisen because there has been a disagreement. I am asking the Secretary of State to deal with the situation as it is now and to say what happens to proposals that are new clauses. He said himself that there were two exceptions to the matters now before the House representing further accretions to the matters under discussion.

In other words, with the greatest respect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what I am postulating is relevant to the debate. It is made relevant by virtue of those two matters put before the House by my right hon. Friend. It is no longer an academic matter. The House should know that the Government have made no attempt to make clear what would be their position if there were to be further amendments or additions to the matters that my right hon. Friend put before the House. I want to know what will be the Minister's attitude.

5.30 p.m.

As the right hon. Member for Lowestoft was allowed to rhapsodise about the revising virtues of the other place, I hope that I am not out of order in asking whether under a Conservative Government anything similar was done, except for the most minor textual matters. The only time that was threatened was when we were discussing the Bill setting up independent television, and Lord Hailsham lost his temper with Lord Salisbury. That is the last and only occasion when there was such an occurrence.

All the talk about the freedom of the Press sticks in the gullet of many of us who have listened at great length to the concern expressed by the Opposition for the freedom of the Press. In column 901 of the Lords Hansard for 3rd November the Lord Chancellor is reported as referring to the comparison between broadcasting and the Press. There is a statutory requirement for broadcasting to be balanced and politically fair. That requirement is written into Sections 4 and 5 of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act, and it is stipulated in the charter and licence of the BBC. A comparison of that requirement with the blatant partisanship exhibited by newspapers shows the cant and humbug of this debate.

Indignation has been expressed about the writings of the Bishop of Southwark in the Morning Star. I have never written a letter to that newspaper, nor would I ever wish to write an article for it, but can one imagine being invited by the editor of the Daily Telegraph to write a similar article? One can only use such vehicles for expression as are available. With each successive newspaper closure the worse the position becomes. We shall never solve the problem until the whole of the Press is governed by a statutory independent newspaper authority with the same powers of regulation and licensing as those possessed by the Independent Broadcasting Authority.

One of the ironies of history is that most Labour Members were bitterly opposed to the establishment of independent television. But we have now come to the conclusion that the only right action that the Conservative Party took in its 13-year rule was to diversify broadcasting.

indicated assent.

I see that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) agrees with me. I hope that he will also agree that the reality of Press freedom will not be achieved until a similar regulative system is set up.

The monopoly of the BBC was broken by the creation of independent television. The breaking of that monopoly benefited freedom of expression. The essence of this debate is the monopoly power exerted by the unions.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and to an extent he is right. There may well come a time when every newspaper except one has folded, and a position will arise which is similar to that which prevails in the motor industry. In those circumstances the hon. Gentleman's argument will certainly be applicable to newspapers. Therefore, the points I have made are wholly valid.

Much has been said about the freedom of access of contributors. Does what has been said apply to the freedom of access of those who wish to write to news papers? I will give an example of a problem which has arisen in the last few days. I have written a letter to The Times in support of the Bishop of Southwark. [Interruption.] Dick Taverne is not exactly a Trotskyite by any standards. Dick Taverne is not a member of my party. Whether the Bishop of Southwark is a member of my party, I know not.

There never has been a time since the Hudson Railway and possibly the South Sea Bubble when the standard of morality of the City of London was so low. That is exemplified by the fact that the rescuer of the Slater organisation is a man of whom it has been said that his principal qualification is high-stakes gambling in the Lucan set. That is an illustration of the level of morality that prevails in the City. The Editor of The Times has managed not to publish my letter, ostensibly because of what he regards as the defamatory aspects of the case. Will Opposition Members who are so concerned about contributors' rights include correspondents' rights when those correspondents are postulating opinions hostile to the editorial policy of the newspaper concerned? Will the relations of the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken), who govern the Daily Express, accept that? Lord Beaverbrook had a blacklist of certain people, including Lord Mountbatten, who were not allowed to be mentioned.

rose—

Order. We have heard about "Lady Chatterley's Lover" and the Bishop of Southwark. Let us hear something that is relevant to the debate.

We have heard about Lady Chatterley but not about the feuding mistresses of the various members of the Rank Board. That is another illustration of the way the City has behaved of late. If I cannot get these matters into the columns of The Times, I shall get them into the columns of Hansard.

My right hon. Friend put forward basic reasons for rejecting the amendments. It is an absurdity to apply industrial relations practices to a situation like this. If Opposition Members have learned anything, it must be that to apply industrial legislative procedures to the sensitive field of industrial relations is disastrous. The inclusion of matters which are said to be contrary to public policy raises the whole question of the dubiety of contractual relations which may be deemed by the courts to be void on the ground of public policy. That is yet another example of the uncertainties that would prevail in the law.

Does the right of unfettered access include privilege in libel, or does it include privilege to incite to crime? It is all very well to say that these things are fantastic, but once we write into a statute provisions of that sort, they will be pleaded by anyone who wishes to abuse a situation. Not everyone will abuse it and, perhaps not more than a very few would do so, but there are always those who take advantage of absurd situations and abuse the system. Whatever my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's charitable thoughts may be about the other place, I suspect that these amendments were tabled, at least by some, for the purposes of stultifying legislation, embarrassing the Government, and causing ill-will in industrial relations.

As hon. Members know, I have decided not to stand for re-election at the next General Election. It is a matter of some sadness for any hon. Member who chooses to do that. Even the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) probably has some feelings of sympathy about that. I have never paid all that much attention to the Whips, but I warn the Government that if they do not deal with the situation of the House of Lords—[Interruption.] In that situation the parliamentary majority is, admittedly, better in practice than it is on paper, because the Opposition are so chicken-hearted that they will not take on the Government. However, there will be circumstances in which the Government will be unable to rely upon my vote and in which it would be an embarrassment, not just a relief, to the Chief Whip to be without, me.

I had meant to start my speech on a non-controversial note, but if we are to throw stones, I would remind hon. Members that we are all in glasshouses and if we are to write letters to The Times about the state of morality I would point out that rather a lot of odd things are happening in the Labour Party. Further, although there have been complaints about threats to the Press, licensing by a public authority is a much bigger threat than the NUJ will ever face.

As usual, I have to declare an interest. On this occasion I do so to make it clear that I speak for myself and no one else. I much regret that we are at loggerheads about this matter. I agree with the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) that it is a matter on which we should have had the advice of the Royal Commision. We are very near agreement; we are agreed upon a charter. The Government have agreed that there shall be a body which will be entitled to examine alleged breaches of the charter and that its results will, in the words of the Secretary of State, have evidential status. I am not quite sure what that means, but I presume that it will be quotable in any subsequent proceedings.

I turn to what I call, without disrespect to another place, the amendments of Lord Hailsham and Lord Goodman. Before this debate ends I should like an hon. Member who is versed in the law to explain rather more fully the effect of these amendments. We are forbidden to quote from the speeches which their Lordships made, but I understand that the effect of these amendments would be to give a remedy—in the case of Lord Goodman at common law, and in the case of Lord Hailsham under a statutory provision—to members of the NUJ or the Institute of Journalists who lose their jobs contrary to the provisions of the charter. I hope I shall be corrected if I am wrong.

5.45 p.m.

This matter should be viewed primarily from the point of view of the public. They have an interest in the freedom of the Press and in free access to the Press, whether by correspondence, which I wholly accept, by contributing articles or in having variety in the Press. If these amendments are accepted, they will give sanctions only in a case where someone has lost status in the union. The Secretary of State disagrees. I hope that at some time we shall be told exactly what these amendments will achieve, if they are agreed, in relation to the freedom of the Press.

As I sought to explain in my remarks and as was indicated in the House of Lords, the issue is much wider. Of course there is great obscurity about what would be the exact meaning of the application. Nothing is certain. That is why it is so wrong to agree the amendment in this way. However, the issue is much wider than the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

That does not take us much further. It goes wider, but how wide? We are not talking about one industry. The Press is an enormously variegated affair. I do not claim to be expert on it, because many hon. Members know more about the workings of newspapers than I, but we should look at the situation that would arise if the charter came into force and if there were breaches of it. It is my experience that a newspaper is a communal production. The chapels are in day-to-day contact with the editorial staff and the editor is in day-to-day contact with his staff. The situation would be exceedingly serious if there were such a confrontation between the editor or the proprietors and the chairman that the charter had to be invoked and sanctions imposed. I am not clear about the status of those involved. If it were alleged that the chapels of The Guardian had acted in such a way as to infringe editorial freedom, I would presume that the proprietors were involved. These are the sort of matters on which we should have further advice. It would prove valuable to have the Royal Commission examine the whole matter.

Even in my limited experience, the NUJ is a variegated body. It contains people of all views and, indeed, some of none. My wife once attended a dinner at which she sat next to a distinguished Guardian journalist. She commented on what a splendid Liberal paper it was and he said "You be careful, there is a strong Conservative cell in The Guardian and I am the head of it."

The only danger that I can foresee is that at some period a body such as the NUJ might be able to impose some sort of censorship upon the whole Press. Individual proprietors have a right to impose views if they have set up a newspaper. However, there are many types of proprietor and I am referring to the danger of pressure being exerted on the whole Press. The word "Press" is extremely vague. I do not believe that the chapels of the NUJ are by any means the only consideration, and it would be very unwise to legislate simply for what they have done. It is my limited experience that they fight their corner, but they are in constant touch—indeed, they are the newspapers. They are constantly consulted about all sorts of matters, including editorial policy.

However, if the Government start giving money to newspapers, the magic words "public accountability" will be raised and this will lead to licensing. The danger is not that they will suppress particular newspapers within the existing spectrum of newspapers. The danger is that it will become very difficult to set up new newspapers of a radical or new outlook, and it may be difficult for really eccentric people to get their writings accepted.

Therefore, I think that we should get away from being so fascinated by the possible actions of the NUJ. It would be silly not to acknowledge that there are some within the NUJ who would like to act in a way which most people would see as contrary to the freedom of the Press. But there are other threats. In some ways the existence of strong unions is a guarantee of freedom. If they disappear, there may be no other real challenges to the State.

That being so, I feel it very important that all these considerations—the exact meanings of these amendments; what sanctions would come in; what the effect of this "evidential status" of the findings of whatever body is set up to enforce the charter would be; the sort of terms that the charter might have—should be calmly considered by a Royal Commission—which luckily we have actually sitting. This is not merely a matter of industrial relations. It goes much wider and it is a proper subject for a Royal Commission.

Another point is that we assume that everyone in this country is brought up to understand what the rule of law and freedom of the Press means. I am not so sure that this is now the case. I am not so sure that it would not be valuable to have this matter considered by the Royal Commission and, if necessary, to have certain signposts erected. That seems to me to be the main advantage of having any sanctions—that there are signposts as to how far one can go.

There is also the possibility that within the next year we shall have to consider a great many other constitutional matters, such as devolution. The whole question of our constitution is up for debate. We may have to have some sort of Bill of Rights. Therefore it would be a greaty pity, having got as far as this, having pretty well agreed upon a charter and having accepted that the charter must have some validity and force, if we should now break the whole thing up.

As I understand the speech of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft, the Opposition would go a great deal of the way towards accepting that if this matter were to be referred to a Royal Commission they would be content with that for the time being. Obviously the Opposition can give no undertaking as to what they would do in the light of its findings. But one possibility—I put it no higher than that—is that the Government should accept the Lords amendments, refer the matter at once to the Royal Commission and, if necessary, bring in an amending Bill next year in the light of the Royal Commission's findings and reverse the Lords amendments. I am only saying that it is one possibility.

I think that I ought to make the position of the Opposition quite clear. Our position is that we think that the House should now accept the Lords amendments and that we would then ask the Royal Commission to look at this matter urgently. Following that, a new Bill could be introduced, which would cover the sort of point that the right hon. Gentleman has been talking about.

That seems also a possibility. But how far can one go by question and answer? I accept that the right hon. Gentleman cannot bind his party. We all know how difficult that is and it applies to all parties, even to the Liberal Party. But is he saying that, having referred the matter to the Royal Commission, if the Commission were to find that the Lords amendments were unworkable or unnecessary, as far as he is concerned he would advise the Conservative Party to expedite and give every fair wind to amending legislation, to put the position back where the House of Commons left it? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give a view about that.

The right hon. Gentleman is now asking me to get into very deep water. We just do not know what the Royal Commission would say. But my personal view is that it would be far better to have the advice of the Royal Commission and to look carefully at that advice, and if that advice was that these amendments were not necessary, and so on, that would be bound to have a very considerable influence over the view that my party took.

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. That is as far as I can press him on the matter.

Before the debate is over, however, I hope that the Government will give some assurance that this matter will be brought to the notice of the Royal Commission. No doubt the Commission is considering it now, but it has to be asked for a view on it. Whether we accept or reject the Lords amendments, I believe that we should examine this matter again when the Royal Commission has reported.

As always, I am delighted to speak after the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). Like him, I declare an interest as a member of the NUJ and, like him, I hope to be brief, because we all wish to proceed on this matter.

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion of reference to the Royal Commission in this particular instance is helpful, although he was trying to be constructive and conciliatory. I say that for this reason. The Royal Commission has already been charged with one interim report. We have serious matters to consider. Only today we have seen the closure of the Scottish Daily News. There are serious matters which the Royal Commission must be looking at in regard to the protection and the economics of the Press.

I do not believe that we should leave these amendments in the Bill in their present form and allow them to be part of the status quo which the Royal Commission must examine. If the Lords amendments are left in the Bill in their present form we are offering to all the parties in these discussions—discussions which may become a dispute—a poisoned chalice. We are effectively saying to them that we shall need to have a new form of legal framework in which they must operate and a constraint against which their voluntary discussions, as we would hope, have to be judged.

I am intervening briefly in the debate as the mover of one of the amendments carried previously in our proceedings.

The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said that he very much regretted that all the conciliation had come from their Lordships and not from this place, and he regretted that we were discussing this matter late in the day. With respect to him, we are discussing it late in the day because there are very unusual constitutional circumstances. These are amendments to amendments to amendments to amendments. That is the situation which has been brought about because the House of Lords has twice sent the Bill back to us with alterations which do not meet the central point which the House of Commons, by a majority, has decided—that the law should not intrude into this area of industrial relations.

On that point, so far we have not reached any form of compromise. That is the point on which ultimately the will of this House should prevail. It will be for other Governments to change this if they see fit, and for the Royal Commission to say in due course what it wishes to be done about the matter, and for us, later, to see whether we were right or wrong. But this is the view of the majority in the House of Commons at present.

From the Government side of the House we see it—and probably I speak now for all of my hon. Friends—as a wilful failure on the part of their Lordships to understand how far my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has gone and what it is that the Labour Party, here at least, wishes to achieve. All of us are united on this matter.

Having listened very carefully to the debate in the other place on 3rd November, I was struck by what seemed to me a wilful failure to recognise how far we had gone in the area of compromise already. Those of their Lordships who spoke in the other persuasion still wish to have a Government of laws and forget that it must also be a Government of men, and that in this area the constraints and distraints of the law are not the only consideration. They wish to have produced, by one means or another, legal formulae which will bring about, perhaps by the creation of a body of case law, what they originally wished to write in by statutory provision. Up with that we cannot put, because it seems to us that there is in this area precisely the defect sharply analysed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) in a speech on the old Industrial Relations Bill—the Act, as it became. One poisons the waters if one has this kind of legal procedure.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Well—

I shall be very brief.

If the hon. Member does not wish to give way, he does not give way.

6.0 p.m.

With due respect to my hon. Friend, others wish to take part in the debate, and I promised to be very brief.

The point I wish to make is that in the debate in another place Lord Gardiner issued a strong warning about what would happen if the public policy amendment were to be passed. As there has been this rather petty squabble and disagreement about page references it would be wise to refer to chapter and verse. Lord Gardiner said—as recorded in column 919 of the Official Report of the House of Lords for 3rd November—that he saw situations in which at least legal constraints and possibly pecuniary penalties could be brought about as a result of the amendments which were then proposed.

That is the view I take. I take a very grave view of it because I believe that this will introduce into these dealings exactly what we do not want. It will introduce an atmosphere of bitterness which will make it almost impossible for those who have argued for the charter to operate and for the kind of debate and discussion which goes on in the National Union of Journalists and, no doubt, in the chapel of The Guardian to take place. Those debates and arguments will be fundamentally altered by the intrusion of the law in this respect.

Their Lordships do not seem to understand that issues of freedom, like issues of industrial relations which are intermingled with them, cannot be legislated about. There is more to them than legislation and the framework of law. There is more to this matter than seeing it from the point of view of the courts and looking outwards. We should be envisaging the reverse situation. We should accept that a voluntary charter is decided by how far the unions are from the shadow of the courts and not how close they are.

Throughout the debates we have heard a good deal from the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill). No doubt he would be interested to learn that his illustrious grandfather was quoted at length in a debate in another place. One of the remarks of the former Liberal Home Secretary, Mr. Winston Churchill, which was quoted the other day was:

"It is not good for trade unions that they should be brought in contact with the courts, and it is not good for the courts."—[Official Report, 30th May 1911; Vol. 26, c. 1022.]

What Mr. Winston Churchill was discussing was not criminal or civil cases but those matters which move much more into areas of class and into areas of party politics. That is an area unsuitable to be dealt with in legislation of this kind, particularly if the legislation is brought about in the form that is proposed and through the agency of the House of Lords.

I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will stand firm against that view, even if it means the implementation of the Parliament Act. The Lords have played a valuable part in these discussions. There is a rôle for the House of Lords as a revising Chamber. I pay tribute to the Lords for their work in that respect. I do not doubt their Lordships' sincerity, even now at the eleventh hour and the fifty-fifth minute, but I do not believe that the last fundamental bastion of our freedom is represented by those who took part in the debates in the House of Lords on 23rd October and 3rd November and who voted through these amendments by such heavy majorities. I believe that they have imperilled themselves by what they did.

The largest vote was one taken on 23rd October, when 188 votes were cast for Lord Goodman's earlier amendment and 126 of those votes—two-thirds of them—were cast by hereditary peers who were there simply by reason of what their remote ancestors did, some of them Press Lords like Lord Rothermere, Lord Kemsley and Lord Astor of Hever. I do not believe that such a vote can represent the final word on this matter.

Do we use the courts, or do we not? Do we go the voluntary way or the way of legal constraints? I believe that we should go the voluntary way, and that the final word should rest with the House of Commons, not with the House of Lords.

We have moved a long way since this legislation first began its passage. During that journey the Government have accepted the need for a statutory provision for a code to come into existence. The Government have accepted the need that it be clearly stated in the legislation what the machinery should be to adjudicate whether there has been a breach of the code. The only thing that the Government do not accept is that there should be in the legislation the slightest inducement to anyone to take any notice of an-adjudication on whether there has been any breach of the code.

Last time we debated this matter the Labour moderates—the members of the Manifesto Group—strained every nerve to get concessions on the contents of the code, and, with a great deal of stage-managed drama, the odd crumb was thrown to them by the Secretary of State in the closing stages of the debate—what matters is not in the charter, though that is of considerable importance. What also matters is what effect the charter has and what effect a breach of the charter has if such a breach is found to have taken place.

I suggest that the central case remains which was argued last time and in the previous debates, that there is a distinct threat to Press freedom—not a great threat, not an impending threat, but the distinct possibility of a threat exercised by a monopoly union if a union should ever obtain a monopoly. That is not fantasy. It is not heroics. It is a reality, a possibility, and something that should be guarded against at the only time that it is possible for Parliament to guard against it, namely, at the time of the passage of this legislation.

What we are debating is whether there should be a proper protection against the exercise of such a threat. It is clear that if that threat became a reality the mere existence of a totally unenforceable code would be no protection and that only if there were some basis of enforceability would there be any protection in a situation as dire as that which we envisage, albeit as a remote threat.

I understand the argument put forward with sincerity by hon. Members opposite that we must not return to the days of the Industrial Relations Act, that there is hostility to statutory intervenion, and that, therefore, it would be wrong for us to accept what their Lordships have done. It is for that reason that I particularly commend the amendment in the name of Lord Goodman, which was proposed in the other place because, as was pointed out by a distinguished jurist who sits on the Socialist benches in the other place—Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, formerly a professor of jurisprudence in London University—

"the Amendment…introduces no new statutory cause of action and no new statutory right of any kind."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3rd November 1975; Vol. 365, c. 954.]

It has been the intervention of statute that hon. Members opposite have objected to, on grounds with which I disagree but which I understand. The Secretary of State has said again and again in these debates that it is statute that is the evil and that he does not object to common law. The common law is a growing organism. If the Secretary of State does not object to the common law, he must not object to it not only in its present form but also in the form which it will reach as it continues to grow.

All that the Goodman amendment does is to provide a measure of guidance which the courts will be able to interpret as they go along dealing with the realities. That measure of guidance is surely a very moderate and modest protection against the threat that we fear, albeit as a remote fear.

If the Secretary of State does not object to the common law developing there is no reason why he should object to its being underpinned by the Goodman amendment, even if he does not, because of the legacy of the Industrial Relations Act, want to create an express statutory right.

That is essentially the case. If the Secretary of State were to tell the House, that he accepts the Goodman amendment but does not accept the Hailsham amendment, there would be many hon. Members on this side—of course, I can speak only for myself—who would regard that as an acceptable basis for compromise. There was a time when I thought that the stage was set for another dramatic concession from the Secretary of State, saying he would denounce the wicked Lord Hailsham but accept the tolerable Lord Goodman, and that we should clinch a deal on that basis. Apparently, it is not to be so. We are not to see that. Even a modest underpinning of the common law as opposed to the creation of the statutory right that is considered so objectionable is not to be the basis of a deal tonight. I say, the more's the pity. It is a great shame. A great opportunity has been missed.

If that is so, if there is a basis for a deal of this kind, where are the moderates now? Where are the members of the Manifesto Group? They have been described as paper tigers but that is an imprecise description. What sort of paper is it? It is not stout cardboard nor firm writing paper. It is a wispy rice paper that wilts in face of the slightest breath and can be trampled into oblivion by any old foot. They have failed to stand up for freedom of speech when threatened. Like the Liberal intellectuals of the Weimar Republic, they have refused to see danger, or have been fobbed off with meaningless phrases and illusory guarantees. We have learned to expect nothing better from the right hon. Gentleman, but we had dared to hope for a little courage from some of his hon. Friends.

That hope has been dashed. It has implications well beyound this Bill. If anyone in this House or in the country looks to the Manifesto Group or the Labour moderates to curb the precipitate Leftward zeal of the Government, they will be sorely disappointed. They mouth the language of moderation, but their feet lead them firmly into the extremist lobbies.

One thing that in this House I have learned about all industrial relations disputes is that the House and the country should at all costs be protected from the good intentions of lawyers. On industrial relations lawyers always say two things: first, that it is absolutely imperative to bring in the law and that there can be no possibility of peace and security for anyone unless matters can be brought before the courts; and, secondly, that they can advise the House well as to what will be the implications when matters are brought before the courts. All my experience has taught me that they are wrong on the first point and misleading on the second. The operation of such matters when they get into the courts in capricious in the extreme.

The trouble with the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) is that he is a Bourbon. He has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. He has forgotten nothing of the Tory manifesto of 1970 and has learned nothing from the disaster of 1971.

With others on this side of the House, as a genuine doubter I have taken up a lot of the time and patience of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. No one could have done more than he has to listen to every representation brought before him, and it would be churlish, when I am with him on this issue tonight, not to say a brief word in his support and state clearly where the Opposition mistake lies.

The mistake lies, however much they may try to deny it, in a preconception that the law ought to come in somewhere and that somewhere there should be a court which can hand down either a judgment or some sort of guidance to be of use to someone in some action he might take. That is the very last thing I want to see happen.

I wish that the Tory Party could learn that there is no point in saving its Confederate money: the South is not going to rise again. That whole area of regulating trade unions in such a way is stone dead. The Conservatives simply do themselves a total disservice, both in terms of legislation before the House and, if I may dare to say so, in my humble judgment, in terms of their own electoral interest, by constantly harking back.

6.15 p.m.

However, seeing them behave in this way, I make a prediction particularly to the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), for whom I have considerable regard. I do not say that the attitude of the Conservative Party here or in another place has been mischievous, but I do say that it has been hopelessly short-sighted. Should the Conservative Party be successful at the next General Election and form the Government, the very greatest issue that that Government will face will be their relationship with the trade unions. That is what they will be most concerned with. I predict infallibly that in no circumstances whatever will the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever else is responsible, legislate such Lords amendments. There is not a chance of his doing so and antagonising the entire trade union movement for something as hypothetical as this.

I could have considered the Opposition's attitude mischievous. I do not, but I think that they have still not learned the lesson of 1971. If the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby will read his own remarks in Hansard tomorrow he will see what I mean. He will not accept that anything other than law is a guarantee of freedom in this case. He accuses the Manifesto Group and others on these benches, who have worked at least as hard as he has done on this issue, of having sold the pass and of being paper tigers only because they cannot get some guarantee to do something that, in my judgment, would be a folly—namely, to bring in the courts.

The hon. Gentleman has the high regard of the whole House. I would be grateful if he would explain how he believes that statutes should interfere with and control the affairs of the City, industry, commerce and every public body in the country but not the trade union movement.

That question would take me very wide of the debate and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not welcome that, but perhaps I can answer it in a sentence. Our law evolved in the way it did long before the trade unions had any effective influence. They do not fit into it. Any attempt to put them on the procrustean bed does not work. It is not a question simply of their not accepting it. They do not fit it, and it does not fit them. The two do not hive well together. We do not serve the best interests of the country by trying to make them do so. We have to handle the problem in other ways.

I do not deny that there are genuine worries I do not want to prevaricate about the matter. There are numerous worries. I do not want to prevaricate and the most important is the fear that the lunatic section of the NUJ will eventually get hold of some editor somewhere and make sure that the paper is run as a Trotskyite rag with no possibility of anyone other than the totalitarian Left giving views on the issues of the day. That is the real fear, stated in my usual blunt and, I hope, straightforward terms. I do not deny that there are people who would like to do it, but they are a very small minority in the unions.

The leadership.

That is nonsensical. The leadership of the NUJ are among the strongest supporters of the freedom of the Press, but there are a small number of members in the union who would do it if they could.

Nothing could be more valuable than that we should have had these numerous debates on the freedom of the Press, because it is clear, and is a far better guarantee than any law, that it is simply impossible, and should be acknowledged everywhere to be impossible, for such a situation to occur without the House of Commons taking steps to redress it. In other words, I do not believe that there will be troubles of the kind that have been put forward as possibilities, because I think that everyone now realises that if such action were to be taken those who have fought so hard for my right hon. Friend's point of view would have to admit that it had not stood the test of time. That action, therefore, ought to be subject to a different remedy.

The most sensible thing in any legislature is not to legislate for distant hypothetical events, but to relate oneself to practical possibilities. It would be apposite to adopt deterrents when there was some proven need for them. At the moment there is not.

As someone who has spent a considerable part of his working life in industrial relations and has always appreciated blunt, straightforward speaking, I very much agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Lady-wood (Mr. Walden). I do not wish to reiterate the arguments we have listened to almost ad nauseam on this subject. The Ulster Unionists acknowledge the paramount importance of Press freedom and share the concern over any possibility of its being eroded.

While there are differences of opinion within our group on the merits of a closed shop, we are united in feeling that we cannot support any attempt to provide special protection for a very small and isolated section of the working population. A few days ago we removed special category status from a number of the people in the community to which I belong. In going along with the Government tonight, we are showing that we do not wish to confer special category status on other people.

There is a Scottish word which adequately describes the difficulties of the House in considering this matter. The word is fankle, and it means muddle, confusion and difficulty in pinpointing the key issues in a debate. Many moderates in the House and outside are distressed by the degree to which the issue of Press freedom has become polarised. It could have been otherwise.

When the House last considered this matter there was a reasonable and practical amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) which purported to have the support of the entire Manifesto Group. It went to the heart of the matter by recognising the uniquely privileged, but burdensome, position of editors. Editors have a threefold responsibility—to their public, proprietors and staff. The Secretary of State has said that Press freedom cannot be divorced from industrial relations practice, but where in industry is there a job comparable with that of an editor? He is subject to constraints by the needs of his paper to survive and by considerations of law. He must remain free from hidden influences within the NUJ and he carries the legal responsibility for a group product. An editor is guarantor of the collective freedom of his workers to get on with their job without political or proprietorial interference. How then can an editor neatly fit into the standard patterns of industrial life?

The Manifesto Group's amendment would have allowed an editor the freedom not to join a union. It said nothing about the rest of the editorial staff, but in reality it would have allowed a closed shop up to but not including the editorial chair. My party thought that right and proper. Those of us with some experience of newspaper offices have no wish to see the NUJ weakened, especially with the current economic difficulties of the newspaper industry. We did not want picture editors, sports editors, women's page editors and crossword editors released from normal trade union obligations.

There used to be an associate membership class within the NUJ. It was open to editors who had gone through the ranks and wanted to retain a foot in the union, while simultaneously the union recognised the inviolability of their external legal obligations. At least one senior member of the NUJ has told me that he believes that associate members' cards should be reintroduced and I think there is some sympathy for that view in the House.

The hon. Member for Gateshead, West did not move his amendment and it was left to Members of my party, along with the Liberals, the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) to do the job for him. If the Conservative Party had mobilised its forces on that occasion, there was a real chance that the Government could have been defeated and that this central issue of Press freedom could have been settled. Instead, they sat on their hands as they do so often and abstained. They appeared to be set on pursuing the matter by confrontation in another place.

Many of us who are moderates and have had some experience of the newspaper industry look at the Lords amendments and the Secretary of State's amendments as a hopeless Hobson's choice. Is there no middle way which recognises the unique rôle of editors while at the same time allowing for a strong NUJ? The answer is apparently "No".

The freedom of the Press is a public freedom. It does not belong to the people working in the industry, whether proprietors, editors, journalists or compositors. Nor does it belong to the ideologies on either side. The public have a fundamental interest in knowing that what they read is free of constraints and outside forces.

Free editors are essential to free journalism. Instead of all the talk tonight of Parliament Acts, recourse to the law courts, and confrontation between the Commons and the Lords, it is a pity that the House did not confine itself to the essentially unique position of editors, and editors alone. It is a disservice to journalism tonight that this battle has not been fought out on the middle ground.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) threw down the gauntlet in his passionate speech. I was not a Member of this House during the passage of the Industrial Relations Bill 1971, but it strains credulity to breaking point and beyond belief that anyone, other than a handful of trade union leaders and Labour Party politicians, still believes that the atmosphere created by that Act makes it necessary for trade unions to be above the law. Not since the days of "the divine right of kings and benefit of clergy" have we had a group of over-mighty subjects said to be beyond the law. In asking us to drop legal backing from the Bill the Secretary of State is asking us to say that newspaper unions are beyond the law.

Some hon. Members have sought to portray the argument between this House and another place as a constitutional crisis. In the past it has been possible to portray such arguments as being a case of the peers versus the people, but this dispute is a clear case of the peers and the people versus the Government. The Secretary of State may have the votes in this House, but he has not won the argument in the country. The British people are rightly suspicious of any piece of legislation which is thought to jeopardise Press freedom.

They might have accepted legislation if it was supported by a Press charter definite in its terms, but this charter has the most glaring omissions. In particular, the 3,000 members of the Institute of Journalists do not have their rights protected by the vagueness of the Secretary of State's wording in the charter. The charter has no legal backing, not even the gentle legal backing of Lord Goodman's amendment. It is an extraordinary commentary on our situation that the Labour Party cannot use the words "law" and "trade unions" in the same sentence.

It is right for us to take a stand on this issue and I am glad that we shall be dividing the House.

6.30 p.m.

The theme of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) appeared to be that cure is better than prevention and I do not think many people would support that concept. This is the Government's Bill, not the Opposition's. When hon. Members opposite go on about not wishing to bring the law into the question of freedom of the Press, they should remember that it is their Government introducing this Bill. It is the Bill which is endangering the freedom of the Press not the arguments put forward by the Opposition here or in the other place.

The Secretary of State is rejecting the rights of editors and other persons exercising editorial responsibilities to discharge their duties free from any obligation to join a trade union. Secondly, he is rejecting the right of journalists to join a trade union of their choice. Thirdly, he is rejecting the rights of editors to commission, publish or not to publish any article free from pressure by industrial action. Fourthly, he is rejecting the right of journalists not to be arbitrarily or unreasonably excluded or expelled from membership of a trade union.

The Government are taking us down a very dangerous path with this Bill. Before long, I have no doubt, the Secretary of State will be coming to this House demanding a Second Reading for a Trade Union and Labour Movement Bill. Clause 1 will contain provisions saying that no one shall have a job unless he is a member of an approved union. Then, perhaps Clause 2 will provide that a person can move from one job to another only if the unions at both places of employment so agree.

This is dangerous legislation setting dangerous precedents, and I hope that at this last opportunity the House will do its best to retain its sanity by retaining the Lords amendments.

I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) say on behalf of himself and his colleagues that he was against a special category for Press workers. I much prefer the words of a former Labour Minister who said in the other place that the printed word is too important to be regarded as a matter of industrial dispute. He went on to vote for the Goodman-Hailsham amendments which are now before us.

Many of the sentiments expressed in these long debates have been highflown, but the arguments have often been trivial. We seemed to get close to the heart of the matter on 15th October when my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken), who has made so many distinguished speeches in these debates, cited the case of Mr. Peter Robbins, the Rugby correspondent of the Financial Times, whose words had been blacked by the NUJ because he was not a member of that union even though he had been a correspondent for nine years, and who was then refused membership of the NUJ.

I support the amendments because I believe that the charter proposed by the Secretary of State would not have helped Mr. Robbins but that these amendments would. I note, however, the words of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett), who has held higher office in the NUJ than any other hon. Member, who in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East on the Robbins case said:

"It is an extremely difficult problem and, in times of industrial pressure, things happen which are not normal or run-of-the-mill."—[Official Report, 15th October 1975; Vol. 897, c. 1461.]

Alas, the Press today is under continuing pressure. We see the closure of the Scottish Daily News, and falling circulations in almost all branches of the newspaper industry. We see the shrinkage and elimination of profits. It is natural that members of the NUJ should be fearful for the safety of their jobs. It is only natural that they should look askance at outside contributors. The problem it causes to the Press is that too many industrious and intelligent journalists are at the moment chasing too few column inches.

The Times summed it up correctly when it said a few days ago:

"The freedom of the Press rests not on statute but on diversity of publication and diversity of access to publication. It is not perfect, but…it needs to be supported and defended; statute did not create it, but at least we must see that statute does not take it away."

If we do not accept the Lords amendments I fear that this Bill will diminish that right of access.

With the leave of the House I shall seek to match the brevity of the last few speakers, especially since I spoke at great length in opening. I gave way then to a large number of hon. Members, which lengthened my speech. I shall not reply to all the arguments from the Opposition Benches because most of them have been answered by my hon. Friends the Members for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) and others who have effectively dealt with the main matters.

I wish first to reply to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr, Grimond), who asked whether this question ought not to be referred to the Royal Commission. That possibility was discussed many months ago when the Royal Commission was originally established. Spokesmen for the Opposition and the British Guild of Newspaper Editors proposed that the issue of the closed shop and how it might affect journalism should be referred to the Royal Commission. Not only the Government but the Royal Commission itself took the contrary view.

Of course, the Royal Commission might in the course of its proceedings cover this subject along with others, and any Government must take account of what it would say if it did. However, the Commission wished to continue with its own investigation and it is therefore through its decision that the matter has not been dealt with in that way. Moreover, I think that the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting that the charter itself should be referred to the Royal Commission. I do not think that that has been suggested before or that it is a good idea.

The right people to draw up a charter are the journalists, the editors and the proprietors—those associated with the industry. I believe that they must certainly take account of the public interest. The code was originally proposed by Mr. Alastair Hetherington of The Guardian. I do not say that that was right, but it was an admirable document and it pointed the way to a solution of the problem. I hope we shall get a charter on that basis. One of our primary objectives is to help to secure that, and one of our primary objections to what is proposed by the House of Lords is that it would interfere with the whole of that procedure.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the necessity of journalists being involved in discussions on the charter. Will he give an assurance that when he speaks of journalists he means not only the NUJ but the Institute of Journalists as well?

I certainly think that the Institute of Journalists should participate in discussions on the charter. I also believe that other editors' groups—such as the magazine editors—should participate. How the negotiations are conducted is a matter for arrangement, but all these matters should be taken into account in the discussions on the charter. There are difficulties to be overcome, but the charter itself, secured by this voluntary means and in the absence of threats of sanctions at the end, will be of value. The threat of ultimate sanctions would poison the whole process. That is why we approached this matter in the way we did. I therefore urge those in another place to bear in mind that, if the Commons votes as we wish, they will bear the responsibility of interfering with the whole process which can lead to the establishment of the charter.

The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) asked me, in effect, what I was worrying about and why I could not accept the Goodman amendment. I do not wish to be offensive, but I am glad to see the ease with which almost universally Lord Hailsham's amendments have been shed by speakers on all sides. That is a commendation of our view that they should not be accepted. We are glad that that progress has been made.

The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby argues that the Goodman amendments are in a different category and he cites the very moderate—an appalling word that we have to use sometimes—speech of Lord Lloyd on this subject. I do not question Lord Lloyd's eminence in the legal sphere, but the hon. Member argues that the very moderate speech of Lord Lloyd on the subject shows that there is nothing to be afraid of in these amendments at all and that they hardly amount to anything and do not impinge in any important way.

That may be the view of Lord Lloyd. He may think that the amendments do not have any great consequence. If they have a considerable consequence, we must discover it. I contend that they have considerable consequence partly because the aim of introducing them is largely to create the possibility of legal actions. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby nods his head, and when he does that his case falls.

Lord Goodman has also spoken in another place of pressing the amendment to a Division. I agree that I must not quote what he said, but apparently the reason for pressing the amendment so strongly is that there must be proper legal remedies. That again, in my opinion, is a very different emphasis from that given by Loyd Lloyd.

I am perfectly entitled to quote what was said by the Lord Chancellor, because he was speaking officially on behalf of the Government and also with full knowledge of the whole of these legal matters. This is what was said by the Lord Chancellor about the legal aspects of the matter on which the House will soon be voting, and it is one of the paramount reasons for my saying that the House should not accept what the Lords have proposed. The Lord Chancellor said:

"I must tell the House that I simply do not know what limits could be foreseen to the possible scope of this Amendment, or its consequence in practice. If rules and agreements"—

which was what Lord Goodman was originally thinking of—

"were to have added to them acts or conduct"—

which is what they have added to them under the provisions—

"the difficulties could be compounded"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3rd November 1975; Vol. 365, c. 963.]

We are asked to vote for a procedure for creating legal actions of infinite number. Nobody knows how wide it will stretch. It could go far beyond any of the narrow questions emphasised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. That is the proposition facing us. We are asked to try to deal with this matter by writing into the law of the land a highly uncertain provision. The Lord Chancellor has said that nobody knows how far it could go. One thing we know is that the intention is to create a whole new field for starting legal actions to deal with this question.

We say that this is wrong. We believe that the House of Lords, on reconsideration, should say that it is wrong. We urge the House of Lords, therefore, to take into account—if it votes on this—what the House of Commons has said on this matter on two occasions after long deliberation. We believe that we have a right to urge that the House of Lords should treat the matter with the utmost seriousness.

On these matters the Labour Government have to contend with many objections in the House of Lords. In the case of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, which is now condemned on both sides, there were no difficulties for a previous Government from the House of Lords. Some amendments came from the House of Lords on that subject, but there was not a single amendment from the House of Lords challenging the central principle that was being enunciated by the Government of the day.

What we are proposing, in dealing with this problem, has had the backing of the House of Commons on numerous occasions. I trust that it will have the backing of the House of Commons on this occasion. If it does, I hope that that will be the end of the matter and that the House of Lords will accept the verdict.

6.45 p.m.

Let me begin by mentioning the things on which we agree. Not for the first time, I agree with something said by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden). He said that we should make no apology for returning to these debates on the freedom of the Press. They are well worth while. Also, we agree that a new body should be constituted to hear complaints and to make declarations about them. That was the new element introduced by a Government in the House of Lords last time. We agree with the drafting changes to Lords Amendment No. 2A.

Having said that, I now turn to the greater issues with which we have been concerned. The right hon. Gentleman opened the debate with a long speech in the course of which there were many interventions—a number being of his own making. There was no sign at all of compromise from the right hon. Gentleman. We had his usual blend of misrepresentation, of backward-looking dogmatism, and the bluff and huff that we associate so well with him. The happiest portion of his speech seemed to be when he was dwelling in the 1920s with D. H. Lawrence and Lady Chatterley—or with "Lady Chatterley's Lover".

The right hon. Gentleman responded to an intervention by saying that he was speaking in a very appeasing mood—that he felt very appeasing. One wonders which is the major body to which that appeasement is directed. At that particular moment it might have been one of their Lordships, but, surveying all these debates, one feels that the appeasement has been directed to the leaders of the TUC, that it is they who occupy first place in his mind.

The right hon. Gentleman has also been guilty of a great deal of twisting and turning on the arguments. He has changed his ground. That is not unusual for him—in fact, it is characteristic. On the last occasion he objected to the idea of the contents of the charter being laid down and having some legal effect. He said then:

"It is quite indefensible that the party concerned should be enabled to draw up its own code which would include statutory offences which could be enforceable without Parliament's having detailed scrutiny over them."—[Official Report, 15th October, 1975; Vol. 897, c. 1428.]

He has thrown the whole of that argument totally overboard today. He has said not a word on that argument, which was the central core of his objection to these proposals last time.

This time we have had some new objections. The first was about the contents of the charter. He has argued that if Parliament agreed to the Lords amendments, the industry would refuse to establish a charter. He made that assertion with no evidence to support his view, and I assert a totally opposite point of view. I believe that if by a substantial majority Parliament agreed the provisions that should be in the charter, those concerned would take account of the views of Parliament and would apply them and would weld and meld their charter around them.

The right hon. Gentleman presented a lurid and somewhat horrendous picture of how these provisions would lead to an increase in cheque-book journalism, and other nasty and unpleasant practices. He prayed in aid the Lord Chancellor's having given support to this view, but when he was pressed we discovered that the speech of the Lord Chancellor to which he was referring had nothing to do with the contents of the charter. It was even made on a different day, and was concerned wholly with the question of the implementation of legal backing.

What we have seen once more today—and the speech from the hon. Member for Ladywood was perhaps the most fluent in putting this view—has been the central objection of the Government and of their supporters to any legislation involving any access to the courts in any way in support of freedom of the Press. That well-known bogy man, the Industrial Relations Act 1971, was brought out again, dusted off and shown to us all. What seemed earlier this year to be the powerful, iron-like determination of the Manifesto Group to defend effective measures has melted away.

The core of the argument seems to be that the unions and their members will always refuse to accept the decisions and jurisdictions of courts on industrial matters. I do not believe that to be so. If it were, the right hon. Gentleman and his party would bear a heavy share of the blame for creating that state of affairs by their encouragement or silence in years gone by, with the exception of the present Minister for Overseas Development and a few others who spoke out in favour of the courts and upholding the rule of law.

I do not agree that leaders of unions will not accept the verdict of the courts and due process of law on important matters. We have the recent example of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers on the question of postal ballots. On a matter central to the internal workings of that union, an aggrieved member found that the only way he could seek redress for what he thought was the wrong imposition of a method of balloting, which would give greater scope to the extremists, was to go to court. To do them credit, the leaders of the AUEW have accepted the court's decision.

On another issue, which is an internal one for the unions, the operation of the Bridlington Agreement, the courts very recently determined the APEX-ASTMS-SAGA case. I understand that the unions have accepted the courts' decision there.

I am not sure how many injunctions have been granted recently. I remember that concerning the car ferry "Eagle"—that a car and luggage should be released. The result was that they were released. One can only speculate as to whether the injunction contributed towards the agreement.

I hate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because he does not have much time, but this is a crucial point. Does he not see the difference between the courts interpreting a union's own rules, which it has made itself, and the unions observing the normal law, as in the ferry case, and what the hon. Gentleman keeps wanting to do, which is to write the unions' rules for them? This they will never accept.

I do not agree with that summary of the case, because the whole basis of the Government argument is that it is wrong for Parliament to seek to legislate in any way that would interfere with industrial relations. I cannot accept that sort of blanket, total restriction, because it would mean that the trade unions would be placed in a unique position of privilege, above and outside any new law that Parliament might care to make.

The truth is very different. In many matters the Government are under the thumb of the trade union leaders. It is the opposition of trade union leaders, not of rank and file trade union members, that weighs so heavily with the Secretary of State. At the heart of the matter lies the Government's refusal to accept that there must be adequate safeguards against arbitrary expulsion or exclusion from union membership, or adequate safeguards for conscience or deeply held personal convictions in a closed shop.

The Government's whole argument about the dangers and difficulties of legislation is totally inconsistent with what the hon. Member for Ladywood and some of his hon. Friends have said about their position at the end of the day. As the hon. Gentleman told us tonight, if perchance the group of mad, wild International Socialists, Marxists, of the Left within the National Union of Journalists ever gained control and sought to impose their views on the whole profession, he would be opposed to that. On Report, he spoke in slightly stronger terms, saying:

"if the power of the NUJ were ever misused to restrict access of non-NUJ members to the Press there would be legislation in this House."—[Official Report, 12th February 1975: Vol. 886, c. 492.]

At the end of the day, there is not all that much difference between us. We accept the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends who take the same view. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Magee) also said on Report that at the end of the day there might be a need for legislation.

Having said that, Labour Members undercut the whole of the Secretary of State's case and the case that they themselves have deployed against legislation, which is that it would he ineffective. Therefore, the House should support both the Hailsham and the Goodman amendments, which are a genuine attempt at compromise. From Lord Hailsham there is a right to redress to the aggrieved individual or organisation, a remedy to compensate for a specific injury—no more, no less. From Lord Goodman there is a declaration that such matters are matters of public policy. I should have thought that that would attract the support of the hon. Member for Ash-field (Mr. Marquand), who spoke in similar terms when we last debated the Lords amendments on 15th October.

The Secretary of State is also asking us to delete the passage in the Goodman amendment that says that common law rights should not be restricted or abridged. How can the right hon. Gentleman justify his opposition to that? Does he seek to abridge or restrict statute law rights or common law rights as they now exist? He surely cannot be massing his forces on a three-line Whip and talking about a constitutional crisis merely because he believes that another place has put in words that were not totally necessary. His attack, as I understand it, is not on tautology but on the substance of the matter.

As I have told the hon. Gentleman in many of these debates, there is no interference whatever with common law or statute rights in this sense. The paragraph is superfluous. That is why we have paid no attention to it in the debate. The public policy issue is very different, and that is the issue on which I have laid the chief emphasis. In what we are doing there is no interference with common law rights.

7.0 p.m.

It has been good to get that assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, but in fact he is massing his forces to vote down that part of the Lords amendment.

Both the Hailsham and Goodman amendments deserve the support of the House. The Goodman amendments have been supported by cross-bench opinion. In another place they have been supported by the Liberals, by the Conservatives and by a former Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is interesting to note how Labour Members treat those whom they used to be cheering not so long ago. What about the former widow of a highly respected leader of the Labour Party? She, too, was in support of the amendments of another place, as was a former Labour Minister.

Division No. 388.]	AYES	[7.1 p.m.
Allaun, Frank	Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Freeson, Reginald
Anderson, Donald	Corbett, Robin	Freud, Clement
Archer, Peter	Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Armstrong, Ernest	Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)	Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Ashley, Jack	Cronin, John	George, Bruce
Ashton, Joe	Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony	Gilbert, Dr John
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)	Cryer, Bob	Ginsburg, David
Atkinson, Norman	Cunningham, G. (Islington S)	Golding, John
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)	Gould, Bryan
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Davidson, Arthur	Gourlay, Harry
Bates, Alf	Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Graham, Ted
Bean, R. E.	Dairies, Denzil (Llanelli)	Grant, George (Morpeth)
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood	Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Grant, John (Islington C)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Bidwell, Sydney	Deakins, Eric	Grocott, Bruce
Boardman, H.	Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Hardy, Peter
Booth, Albert	Delargy, Hugh	Harper, Joseph
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur	Dell, Rt Hon Edmund	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)	Dempsey, James	Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Bradley, Tom	Doig, Peter	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Dormand, J. D.	Hatton, Frank
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)	Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Hayman, Mrs. Helene
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Dunlop, John	Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Buchan, Norman	Dunn, James A.	Heffer, Eric S.
Buchanan, Richard	Dunnett, Jack	Hooley, Frank
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)	Eadle, Alex	Hooson, Emlyn
Cailaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)	Edge, Geoff	Horam, John
Callagnan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)	Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Campbell, Ian	English, Michael	Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Canavan, Dennis	Ennals, David	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Cant, R. B.	Evan, Fred (Caerphilly)	Huckfield, Les
Carmichel, Neil	Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Carson, John	Ewing, Harry (Stirling)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Carter, Ray	Faulds, Andrew	Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.	Hunter, Adam
Cartwright, John	Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)	Irving, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Clemitsen, Ivor	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)	Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Coleman, Donald	Forrester, John	Janner, Greville
Concannon, J. D.	Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Conlan, Bernard	Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)	Jeger, Mrs Lena
		Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

We should take account of the weighty all-party support that the amendments have had in another place. That is why we intend to vote to sustain the Lords' view of the contents of the charter and to support both the Hailsham and Goodman amendments. The freedom of the Press demands more positive and effective action than the Government at present accept. The constitutional process is not yet complete and perhaps agreement on effective measures can yet be found.

On other occasions I have attacked the excesses of the Press, but I believe that the freedom of the Press is a most precious quality that we must fight to protect. I believe that on this occasion their Lordships have spoken for the public good. The House should support the Lords; amendment.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 290. Noes 241.

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
John, Brynmor	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Spearing, Nigel
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)	Moyle, Roland	Spriggs, Leslie
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)	Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick	Stallard, A. W.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Newens, Stanley	Stoddart, David
Judd, Frank	Noble, Mike	Stott, Roger
Kaufman, Gerald	Oakes, Gordon	Strang, Gavin
Kelley, Richard	Ogden, Erie	Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Kerr, Russell	O'Halloran, Michael	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Kilroy-Silk, Robert	O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian	Swain, Thomas
Kinnock, Neil	Orbach, Maurice	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Lambie, David	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Lamborn, Harry	Ovenden, John	Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Lamond, James	Owen, Dr David	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)	Padley, Walter	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Leadbitter, Ted	Palmer, Arthur	Tierney, Sydney
Lee, John	Pardoe, John	Tinn, James
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Park, George	Tomlinson, John
Lever, Rt Hon Harold	Parker, John	Tomney, Frank
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Parry, Robert	Torney, Tom
Lipton, Marcus	Peart, Rt Hon Fred	Tuck, Raphael
Litterick, Tom	Pendry, Tom	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Lomas, Kenneth	Penhaligon, David	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Loyden, Eddie	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch	Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Luard, Evan	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Lyon Alexander (York)	Price, C. (Lewisham W)	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)	Price, William (Rugby)	Ward, Michael
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson	Radice, Giles	Watkins, David
McCartney, Hugh	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)	Watkinson, John
McCusker, H.	Richardson, Miss Jo	Weetch, Ken
McElhone, Frank	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Weitzman, David
MacFarquhar, Roderick	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)	Wellbeloved, James
McGuire, Michael (Ince)	Robertson, John (Paisley)	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Mackenzie, Gregor	Roderick, Caerwyn	White, James (Pollok)
Maclennan, Robert	Rodgers, George (Chorley)	Whitehead, Phillip
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Rodgers, William (Stockton)	Whitlock, William
Madden, Max	Rooker, J. W.	Wigley, Dafydd
Magee, Bryan	Roper, John	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Mahon, Simon	Rose, Paul B.	Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Marks, Kenneth	Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)	Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Marquand, David	Ross, William (Londonderry)	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Rowlands, Ted	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Sandelson, Neville	Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)
Maynard, Miss Joan	Sedgemore, Brian	Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Meacher, Michael	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)	Woodall, Alec
Mendelson, John	Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Woof, Robert
Mikardo, Ian	Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Millan, Bruce	Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)	Young, David (Bolton E)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Molyneaux, James	Sillars, James	Mr. John Ellis and
Moorman, Eric	Skinner, Dennis	Mr. James Hamilton.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Small, William

NOES
Adley, Robert	Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Fairgrieve, Russell
Aitken, Jonathan	Budgen, Nick	Farr, John
Alison, Michael	Bulmer, Esmond	Fell, Anthony
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Burden, F. A.	Finsberg, Geoffrey
Arnold, Tom	Carlisle, Mark	Fisher, Sir Nigel
Awdry, Daniel	Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Baker, Kenneth	Channon, Paul	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Banks, Robert	Churchill, W. S.	Fookes, Miss Janet
Bell, Ronald	Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Clark, William (Croydon S)	Fox, Marcus
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)	Cockcroft, John	Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Benyon, W.	Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Fry, Peter
Berry, Hon Anthony	Cope, John	Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Biffen, John	Cormack, Patrick	Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Biggs-Davison, John	Costain, A. P.	Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Blaker, Peter	Crouch, David	Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Body, Richard	Crowder, F. P.	Glyn, Dr Alan
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Dodsworth, Geoffrey	Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Bottomley, Peter	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Goodhart, Philip
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Drayson, Burnaby	Goodhew, Victor
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)	du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Goodlad, Alastair
Braine, Sir Bernard	Durant, Tony	Gorst, John
Brittan, Leon	Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Elliott, Sir William	Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Brotherton, Michael	Emery, Peter	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Eyre, Reginald	Gray, Hamish
Bryan, Sir Paul	Fairbairn, Nicholas	Griffiths, Eldon

Grist, Ian	McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Grylls, Michael	McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)	Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Hall, Sir John	Madel, David	Royle, Sir Anthony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Mates, Michael	Sainsbury, Tim
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Mather, Carol	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Hampson, Dr Keith	Maude, Angus	Scott, Nicholas
Hannam, John	Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)	Mawby, Ray	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Hastings, Stephen	Mayhew, Patrick	Shepherd, Colin
Havers, Sir Michael	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Silvester, Fred
Hawkins, Paul	Mills, Peter	Sims, Roger
Hayhoe, Barney	Miscampbell, Norman	Sinclair, Sir George
Heath, Rt Hon Edward	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Heseltine, Michael	Moate, Roger	Speed, Keith
Hicks, Robert	Monro, Hector	Spence, John
Higgins, Terence L.	Montgomery, Fergus	Sproat, Iain
Holland, Phillip	Moore, John (Croydon C)	Slainton, Keith
Hordern, Peter	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Morgan, Geraint	Stanley, John
Howell, David (Guildford)	Morris, Michael (Northampton S)	Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Hunt, John	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Hurd, Douglas	Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)	Stokes, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Mudd, David	Stonehouse, Rt Hon John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Neave, Airey	Stradling Thomas, J.
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)	Nelson, Anthony	Tapsell, Peter
James, David	Neubert, Michael	Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)	Newton, Tony	Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Jessel, Toby	Nott, John	Tebbit, Norman
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)	Onslow, Cranley	Temple-Morris, Peter
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)	Oppenheim, Mrs Sally	Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Jopling, Michael	Page, John (Harrow West)	Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)	Townsend, Cyril D.
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Pattie, Geoffrey	Trotter, Neville
Kershaw, Anthony	Percival, Ian	Tugendhat, Christopher
Kimball, Marcus	Peyton, Rt Hon John	van Straubenzee, W. R.
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)	Pink, R. Bonner	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Viggers, Peter
Kitson, Sir Timothy	Prior, Rt Hon James	Wakeham, John
Knight, Mrs Jill	Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Knox, David	Raison, Timothy	Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Lamont, Norman	Rathbone, Tim	Wall, Patrick
Langford-Holt, Sir John	Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Walters, Dennis
Latham, Michael (Melton)	Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)	Warren, Kenneth
Lawrence, Ivan	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Weatherill, Bernard
Lawson, Nigel	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)	Wells, John
Le Marchant, Spencer	Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)	Wiggin, Jerry
Lloyd, Ian	Ridley, Hon Nicholas	Winterton, Nicholas
Loveridge, John	Ridsdale, Julian	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Luce, Richard	Rifkind, Malcolm	Younger, Hon George
McAdden, Sir Stephen	Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Macfarlane, Neil	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Mr. Adam Butler and
MacGregor, John	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)	Mr. Cecil Parkinson.
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question, That this House doth insist on its amendment to the Lords amendment to which the Lords have disagreed—[ Mr. Foot]— put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 2A in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 2 disagreed to.

Amendment made in lieu of the Lords amendment:

In subsection (3), line 7, leave out from 'draft' to end of subsection and insert ', in accordance with subsection (3A) below, a charter containing such practical guidance as is referred to in subsection (1) above, and shall lay the draft before both Houses of Parliament.

(3A) Where, or so far as, there appears to the Secretary of State to be agreement among the parties referred to in subsection (1) above on any matter relating to the freedom of the press, he shall incorporate in the draft charter such practical guidance as he thinks appropriate to give effect to that agreement; and where, or so far as, there appears to the Secretary of State to be no such agreement on any of the particular matters mentioned in subsection (2) above as included in matters relating to the freedom of the press, he shall incorporate in the draft charter such practical guidance on that matter as he thinks fit'.—[Mr. Foot.]

Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 3A proposed: in paragraph ( b) leave out from 'well-founded' to end of paragraph.—[ Mr. Foot.]

Motion made, and Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

Division No. 389.]	AYES	[7.15 p.m.
Allaun, Frank	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	McCartney, Hugh
Anderson, Donald	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	McCusker, H.
Archer, Peter	Foot, Rt Hon Michael	McElhone, Frank
Armstrong, Ernest	Forrester, John	MacFarquhar, Roderick
Ashley, Jack	Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Ashton, Joe	Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)	Mackenzie, Gregor
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)	Freeson, Reginald	Maclennan, Robert
Atkinson, Norman	Freud, Clement	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Garrett, John (Norwich S)	Madden, Max
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)	Magee, Bryan
Bates, Alf	George, Bruce	Mahon, Simon
Bean, R. E.	Gilbert, Dr John	Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood	Ginsburg, David	Marks, Kenneth
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Golding, John	Marquand, David
Bidwell, Sydney	Gould, Bryan	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Boardman, H.	Gourlay, Harry	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Booth, Albert	Graham, Ted	Maynard, Miss Joan
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Meacher, Michael
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)	Grant, John (Islington C)	Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Bradley, Tom	Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Mendelson, John
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Grocott, Bruce	Mikardo Ian
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Millan, Bruce
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Hardy, Peter	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Buchan, Norman	Harper, Joseph	Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Buchanan, Richard	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Molyneaux, James
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)	Hart, Rt Hon Judith	Moonman, Eric
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Hatton, Frank	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Campbell, Ian	Hayman, Mrs. Helene	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Canavan, Dennis	Healey, Rt Hon Denis	Moyle, Roland
Cant, R. B.	Heffer, Eric S.	Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Carmichael, Neil	Hooley, Frank	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Carson, John	Hooson, Emlyn	Newens, Stanley
Carter, Ray	Horam, John	Noble, Mike
Carter Jones, Lewis	Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)	Oakes, Gordon
Cartwright, John	Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)	Ogden, Eric
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	O'Halloran, Michael
Clemitson, Ivor	Huckfield, Les	O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)	Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)	Orbach, Maurice
Coleman, Donald	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Concannon, J. D.	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Ovenden, John
Conlan, Bernard	Hunter, Adam	Owen, Dr David
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)	Padley, Walter
Corbett, Robin	Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	Palmer, Arthur
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)	Pardoe, John
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)	Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)	Park, George
Cronin, John	Janner, Greville	Parker, John
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Parry, Robert
Cryer, Bob	Jeger, Mrs Lena	Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Pendry, Tom
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)	Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)	Penhaligon, David
Davidson, Arthur	John, Brynmor	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Johnson, Walter (Derby S)	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)	Jones, Alec (Rhondda)	Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Price, William (Rugby)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Radice, Giles
Deakins, Eric	Judd, Frank	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Kaufman, Gerald	Richardson, Miss Jo
Delargy, Hugh	Kelley, Richard	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund	Kerr, Russell	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Dempsey, James	Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Doig, Peter	Kinnock, Neil	Roderick, Caerwyn
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Lambie, David	Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Dunlop, John	Lamborn, Harry	Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Dunn, James A.	Lamond, James	Rooker, J. W.
Dunnett, Jack	Latham, Arthur (Paddington)	Roper, John
Eadie, Alex	Leadbitter, Ted	Rose, Paul B.
Edge, Geoff	Lee, John	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)	Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Ellis, Jonn (Brigg & Scun)	Lever, Rt Hon Harold	Ross, William (Londonderry)
English, Michael	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Rowlands, Ted
Ennals, David	Lipton, Marcus	Sandelson, Neville
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)	Litterick, Tom	Sedgemore, Brian
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	Lomas, Kenneth	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)	Loyden, Eddie	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Faulds, Andrew	Luard, Evan	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.	Lyon, Alexander (York)	Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Flannery, Martin	Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)	Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
	Mabon, Dr J. Dickson	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 243.

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)	Tinn, James	Whitlock, William
Sillars, James	Tomlinson, John	Wigley, Dafydd
Skinner, Dennis	Tomney, Frank	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Small, William	Torney, Tom	Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)	Tuck, Raphael	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Spearing, Nigel	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.	Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Spriggs, Leslie	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Stallard, A. W.	Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)	Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)
Stott, Roger	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)	Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Strang, Gavin	Ward, Michael	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.	Watkins, David	Woodall, Alec
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley	Watkinson, John	Woof, Robert
Swain, Thomas	Weetch, Ken	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)	Weitzman, David	Young, David (Bolton E)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)	Wellbeloved, James	TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Thomas, Milke (Newcastle E)	White, Frank R. (Bury)	Mr. J. D. Dormand and
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)	White, James (Pollok)	Mr. David Stoddart.
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)	Whitehead, Phillip
Tierney, Sydney

NOES
Adley, Robert	Fookes, Miss Janet	Latham, Michael (Melton)
Aitken, Jonathan	Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)	Lawrence, Ivan
Alison, Michael	Fox, Marcus	Lawson, Nigel
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)	Lloyd, Ian
Arnold, Tom	Fry, Peter	Loveridge, John
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.	McAdden, Sir Stephen
Awdry, Daniel	Gardiner, George (Reigate)	McCrindle, Robert
Baker, Kenneth	Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)	Macfarlane, Neil
Banks, Robert	Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)	MacGregor, John
Bell, Ronald	Glyn, Dr Alan	Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Godber, Rt Hon Joseph	McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)	Goodhart, Philip	McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Benyon, W.	Goodhew, Victor	Madel, David
Berry, Hon Anthony	Goodlad, Alastair	Mates, Michael
Biffen, John	Gorst, John	Mather, Carol
Biggs-Davison, John	Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)	Maude, Angus
Blaker, Peter	Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)	Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Body, Richard	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Mawby, Ray
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Gray, Hamish	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Bottomley, Peter	Griffiths, Eldon	Mayhew, Patrick
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Grist, Ian	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)	Grylls, Michael	Mills, Peter
Braine, Sir Bernard	Hall, Sir John	Miscampbell, Norman
Brittan, Leon	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Moate, Roger
Brotherton, Michael	Hampson, Dr Keith	Monro, Hector
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Hannam, John	Montgomery, Fergus
Bryan, Sir Paul	Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)	Moore, John (Croydon C)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss	More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Budgen, Nick	Hastings, Stephen	Morgan, Geraint
Bulmer, Esmond	Havers, Sir Michael	Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Burden, F. A.	Hawkins, Paul	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Hayhoe, Barney	Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Carlisle, Mark	Heath, Rt Hon Edward	Mudd, David
Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Heseltine, Michael	Neave, Airey
Channon, Paul	Hicks, Robert	Nelson, Anthony
Churchill, W. S.	Higgins, Terence L.	Neubert, Michael
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Holland, Phillip	Newton, Tony
Clark, William (Croydon S)	Hordern, Peter	Nott, John
Cockcroft, John	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Onslow, Cranley
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Howell, David (Guildford)	Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Cope, John	Hunt, John	Page, John (Harrow West)
Cormack, Patrick	Hurd, Douglas	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Costain, A. P.	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Parkinson, Cecil
Crouch, David	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Pattie, Geoffrey
Crowder, F. P.	Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)	Percival, Ian
Dodsworth, Geoffrey	James, David	Peyton, Rt Hon John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)	Pink, R. Bonner
Drayson, Burnaby	Jessel, Toby	Price, David (Eastleigh)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)	Prior, Rt Hon James
Durant, Tony	Jones, Arthur (Daventry)	Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Jopling, Michael	Raison, Timothy
Elliott, Sir William	Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Rathbone, Tim
Emery, Peter	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Eyre, Reginald	Kershaw, Anthony	Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Kimball, Marcus	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Fairgrieve, Russell	King, Evelyn (South Dorset)	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Farr, John	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Fell, Anthony	Kitson, Sir Timothy	Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Finsberg, Geoffrey	Knight, Mrs Jill	Ridsdale, Julian
Fisher, Sir Nigel	Knox, David	Rifkind, Malcolm
Fletcher Alex (Edinburgh N)	Lamont, Norman	Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Sproat, Iain	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)	Stainton, Keith	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Stanbrook, Ivor	Viggers, Peter
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)	Stanley, John	Wakeham, John
Royle, Sir Anthony	Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Sainsbury, Tim	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)	Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
St. John-Stevas, Norman	Stokes, John	Wall, Patrick
Scott, Nicholas	Stonehouse, Rt Hon John	Walters, Dennis
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)	Stradling Thomas, J.	Warren, Kenneth
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)	Tapsell, Peter	Weatherill, Bernard
Shelton, William (Streatham)	Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)	Wells, John
Shepherd, Colin	Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)	Wiggin, Jerry
Silvester, Fred	Tebbit, Norman	Winterton, Nicholas
Sims, Roger	Temple-Morris, Peter	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Sinclair, Sir George	Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret	Younger, Hon George
Skeet, T. H. H.	Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Speed, Keith	Townsend, Cyril D.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Spence, John	Trotter, Neville	Mr. Spencer Le Marchan and
Spicer, Michael (S. Worcester)	Tugendhat, Christopher	Mr. Richard Luce.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Further amendment to Lords Amendment No. 3 A made: leave out from "Any decision" to end of subsection.—[ Mr. Foot.]

Lords Amendment No. 3A, as amended, agreed to.

Division No. 390.]	AYES	[7.26 p.m.
Allaun, Frank	Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Hooley, Frank
Anderson, Donald	Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)	Horam, John
Archer, Peter	Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Armstrong, Ernest	Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)	Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Ashley, Jack	Deakins, Eric	Huckfield, Les
Ashton, Joe	Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)	Delargy, Hugh	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Atkinson, Norman	Dell, Rt Hon Edmund	Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Dempsey, James	Hunter, Adam
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Doig, Peter	Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Bates, Alf	Dormand, J. D.	Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Bean, R. E.	Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood	Dunlop, John	Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Dunn, James A.	Janner, Greville
Bidwell, Sydney	Dunnett, Jack	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Boardman, H.	Eadie, Alex	Jeger, Mrs Lena
Booth, Albert	Edge, Geoff	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur	English, Michael	Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)	Ennals, David	John, Brynmor
Bradley, Tom	Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)	Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)	Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)	Ewing, Harry (Stirling)	Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Faulds, Andrew	Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Buchan, Norman	Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.	Judd, Frank
Buchanan, Richard	Flannery, Martin	Kaufman, Gerald
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Kelley, Richard
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Kerr, Russell
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Campbell, Ian	Forrester, John	Kinnock, Neil
Canavan, Dennis	Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	Lambie, David
Cant, R. B.	Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)	Lamborn, Harry
Carmichael, Neil	Freeson, Reginald	Lamond, James
Carson, John	Garrett, John (Norwich S)	Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Carter, Ray	Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)	Leadbitter, Ted
Carter-Jones, Lewis	George, Bruce	Lee, John
Cartwright, John	Gilbert, Dr John	Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara	Ginsburg, David	Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Clemitson, Ivor	Golding, John	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)	Gould, Bryan	Lipton, Marcus
Coleman, Donald	Gourlay, Harry	Litterick, Tom
Concannon, J. D.	Graham, Ted	Lomas, Kenneth
Conlan, Bernard	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Loyden, Eddie
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Grant, John (Islington C)	Luard, Evan
Corbett, Robin	Grocott, Bruce	Lyon, Alexander (York)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)	Hardy, Peter	Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Cronin, John	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	McCartney, Hugh
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony	Hart, Rt Hon Judith	McCusker, H.
Cryer, Bob	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	McElhone, Frank
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)	Hatton, Frank	MacFarquhar, Roderick
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)	Hayman, Mrs Helene	McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Davidson, Arthur	Healey, Rt Hon Denis	Mackenzie, Gregor
	Heffer, Eric S.	Maclennan, Robert

Lords Amendment No. 4A to Commons Amendment No. 4.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment—[ Mr. Foot]:—

The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 250.

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Madden, Max	Price, C. (Lewisham W)	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Magee, Bryan	Price, William (Rugby)	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Mahon, Simon	Radice, Giles	Tierney, Sydney
Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)	Tinn, James
Marks, Kenneth	Richardson, Miss Jo	Tomlinson, John
Marquand, David	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Tomney, Frank
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)	Torney, Tom
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Robertson, John (Paisley)	Tuck, Raphael
Maynard, Miss Joan	Roderick, Caerwyn	Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Meacher, Michael	Rodgers, George (Chorley)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert	Rodgers, William (Stockton)	Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Mendelson, John	Rooker, J. W.	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mikardo, Ian	Roper, John	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Millan, Bruce	Rose, Paul B.	Ward, Michael
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)	Watkins, David
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)	Ross, William (Londonderry)	Watkinson, John
Molyneaux, James	Rowlands, Ted	Weetch, Ken
Moonman, Eric	Sandelson, Neville	Weitzman, David
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Sedgemore, Brian	Wellbeloved, James
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)	White, James (Pollok)
Moyle, Roland	Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Whitehead, Phillip
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick	Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)	Whitlock, William
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King	Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)	Wigley, Dafydd
Newens, Stanley	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Noble, Mike	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)	Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Oakes, Gordon	Sillars, James	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Ogden, Eric	Skinner, Dennis	Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
O'Halloran, Michael	Small, William	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian	Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Orbach, Maurice	Spearing, Nigel	Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Spriggs, Leslie	Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Ovenden, John	Stallard, A. W.	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Owen, Dr David	Stoddart, David	Woodall, Alec
Padley, Walter	Stott, Roger	Woof, Robert
Palmer, Arthur	Strang, Gavin	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Park, George	Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.	Young, David (Bolton E)
Parker, John	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Parry, Robert	Swain, Thomas	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Peart, Rt Hon Fred	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)	Mr. John Ellis and
Pendry, Tom	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)	Mr. Joseph Harper
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

NOES
Adley, Robert	Cope, John	Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Aitken, Jonathan	Cormack, Patrick	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Alison, Michael	Costain, A. P.	Gray, Hamish
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Crouch, David	Griffiths, Eldon
Arnold, Tom	Crowder, F. P.	Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)	Grist, Ian
Awdry, Daniel	Dodsworth, Geoffrey	Grylls, Michael
Baker, Kenneth	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Hall, Sir John
Banks, Robert	Drayson, Burnaby	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Bell, Ronald	du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Durant, Tony	Hampson, Dr Keith
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)	Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Hannam, John
Berry, Hon Anthony	Elliott, Sir William	Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Biffen, John	Emery, Peter	Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Biggs-Davison, John	Eyre, Reginald	Hastings, Stephen
Blaker, Peter	Fairbairn, Nicholas	Havers, Sir Michael
Body, Richard	Fairgrieve, Russell	Hawkins, Paul
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Farr, John	Hayhoe, Barney
Bottomley, Peter	Fell, Anthony	Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Finsberg, Geoffrey	Heseltine, Michael
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)	Fisher, Sir Nigel	Hicks, Robert
Braine, Sir Bernard	Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)	Higgins, Terence L.
Brittan, Leon	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Holland, Philip
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.	Fookes, Miss Janet	Hooson, Emlyn
Brotherton, Michael	Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)	Hordern, Peter
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Fox, Marcus	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Bryan, Sir Paul	Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)	Howell, David (Guildford)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Freud, Clement	Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Budgan, Nick	Fry, Peter	Hunt, John
Bulmer, Esmond	Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.	Hurd, Douglas
Burden, F. A.	Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Hutchison, Michael Clark
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Carlisle, Mark	Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)	Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Glyn, Dr Alan	James, David
Channon, Paul	Godber, Rt Hon Joseph	Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)
Churchill, W. S.	Goodhart, Philip	Jessel, Toby
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Goodhew, Victor	Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Clark, William (Croydon S)	Goodlad, Alastair	Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Cockcroft, John	Gorst, John	Jopling, Michael
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)	Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Kaberry, Sir Donald	Mudd, David	Sims, Roger
Kershaw, Anthony	Neave, Airey	Sinclair, Sir George
Kimball, Marcus	Nelson, Anthony	Skeet, T. H. H.
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)	Neubert, Michael	Speed, Keith
King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Newton, Tony	Spence, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy	Nott, John	Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Knight, Mrs Jill	Onslow, Cranley	Sproat, Iain
Knox, David	Oppenheim, Mrs Sally	Stainton, Keith
Lamont, Norman	Page, John (Harrow West)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Langford-Holt, Sir John	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)	Stanley, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)	Pardoe, John	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Lawrence, Ivan	Parkinson, Cecil	Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Lawson, Nigel	Pattie, Geoffrey	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Le Marchant, Spencer	Penhaligon, David	Stokes, John
Lloyd, Ian	Percival, Ian	Stonehouse, Rt Hon John
Loveridge, John	Peyton, Rt Hon John	Stradling Thomas, J.
Luce, Richard	Pink, R. Bonner	Tapsell, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
McCrindle, Robert	Prior, Rt Hon James	Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Macfarlane, Neil	Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Tebbit, Norman
MacGregor, John	Raison, Timothy	Temple-Morris, Peter
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)	Rathbone, Tim	Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)	Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Thomas, Rt. Hon P. (Hendon S)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)	Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)	Townsend, Cyril D.
Madel, David	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Trotter, Neville
Mates, Michael	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)	Tugendhat, Christopher
Mather, Carol	Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Maude, Angus	Ridley, Hon Nicholas	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald	Ridsdale, Julian	Viggers, Peter
Mawby, Ray	Rifkind, Malcolm	Wakeham, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Mayhew, Patrick	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)	Wall, Patrick
Mills, Peter	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)	Walters, Dennis
Miscampbell, Norman	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Warren, Kenneth
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)	Weatherill, Bernard
Moate, Roger	Royle, Sir Anthony	Wells, John
Monro, Hector	Sainsbury, Tim	Wiggin, Jerry
Montgomery, Fergus	St. John-Stevas, Norman	Winterton, Nicholas
Moore, John (Croydon C)	Scott, Nicholas	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)	Younger, Hon George
Morgan, Geraint	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)	Shelton, William (Streatham)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Shepherd, Colin	Mr. W. Benyon and
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)	Silvester, Fred	Mr. Michael Roberts

Question accordingly agreed to.

Remaining Lords amendments disagreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for insisting on a Commons amendment to a Lords amendment to which the Lords disagreed, and for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments to a Commons amendment to a Lords amendment; Mr. Thomas Cox, Mr. Secretary Foot, Mr. Hayhoe, Mr. Prior and Mr. Harold Walker; Three to be the quorum.—[ Mr. Foot.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for insisting on a Commons amendment to a Lords amendment to which the Lords disagreed, and for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments to a Commons amendment to a Lords amendment, reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

European Community (Budget)

7.40 p.m.

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of the draft Community Budget for 1976 and Commission Documents Nos. R/2145/75, R/2158/75 and R/2228/75.

Four months ago almost to the day, the House had a belated discussion of the 1975 Community budget. We are today at a rather more appropriate moment discussing the draft 1976 budget. This has been the subject of no fewer than three useful reports from the Scrutiny Committee. Perhaps I can take the opportunity at this early stage in the debate to thank its members for the hard work which they have put into scrutinising these voluminous documents in a very limited period of time.

In my opening remarks today I should like to concentrate on three major areas: the nature of the Community budget, the developments at the two Budget Councils in September leading up to the establishment of the draft budget—the document on which we shall be concentrating today—and, finally, the points made by the Scrutiny Committee.

Before moving to the detail of the 1976 budget, I think it is worth restating the nature of the Community budget and its place in the policy-formulating processes of the Community. Despite its name the Community budget, unlike the United Kingdom Budget, is essentially concerned with expenditure rather than revenue. The main function of the Community budget, like United Kingdom annual Estimates, is to agree on the cost of carrying out existing Community policies. When adopted, the budget constitutes authority for expenditure. Revenue enters into the process only in so far as it is necessary to forecast the yield of the Community's own resources from predetermined sources needed to match the expenditure proposed.

The nature of the budget is reflected in the procedures for its discussion and adoption. The Commission compiles the preliminary draft budget on its own responsibilty, taking account of the estimates submitted by the other institutions for their expenditure needs in the forthcoming year. In it the Commission includes all foreseeable expenditure, even on projects which have not yet been discussed by the Council. It does not feel able to put forward a preliminary draft budget which in any sense represents an allocation of priorities.

In the last two years the Council has taken the view when examining the preliminary draft that all items on which there is no Council agreement should be deleted or, if agreement is very close, that provision should be made in Chapter 98. The provision in this chapter is held in reserve and cannot be spent until the Council agrees, after the policy decision has been taken, to its transfer to the relevant operational chapter.

Inevitably, therefore, between the preliminary draft and the draft budget there will be cuts to exclude those items on which there have not been firm Council decisions. In this way, decisions to be taken by other Ministers are not prejudiced by the Budget Council and the provision for new policies can be properly examined in the context of a supplementary budget. It also improves the use of the budget as instrument of financial control.

The preliminary draft budget presented by the Commission, together with the agriculture estimates included in the amending letter—R/2228/75—amounted to 8,058 million units of accounts, or £3,358 million. The Budget Council made cuts in this of 601 mua, or £ 250 million, establishing a draft budget totalling 7,457 mura, or £3,107 million.

These cuts reflect not only the exclusion of these non-agreed items but also the need to exercise financial stringency in the current economic situation. In examining the preliminary draft budget, the Council adopted a declaration to the effect that the economic and financial situation of the member States led it to try to make all possible cuts in the light of the information to hand in September and in the next part of the budgetary procedure to take account of any additional economies, as well as changes in the world economic situation and improvements in policies approved by the Council before the second reading. We shared this general approach because of the overriding need to contain the growth in public expenditure.

The position reached on the major areas for Community expenditure is as follows. The Regional Fund is an area of the budget to which we attach great importance. For the Regional Fund, the budget contains both commitment appropriations, which limit the extent to which the Commission can undertake to provide assistance from the fund, and payment appropriations, which set a limit to actual expenditure in the course of the year. These two limits reflect the inevitable lag between agreement to assist a project and payments being made. The Council accepted the Commission's proposal that the level of commitment appropriations should be fixed at the maximum available under the RDF decision—500 mua. This will enable the fund to operate at full stretch. Fixing the level of payment appropriations involves estimating the amount of money required to meet the fund's commitments.

Because of the time lag between agreement to a commitment and payment being made, approximately 100 mua of the 1975 provision will have to be carried forward to 1976. In view of this, the Council felt that a further 300 mua would be sufficient to meet the payments likely to be made in 1976.

The right hon. Gentleman has just referred to 100 million units of account being carried forward. Will he explain whether the system of accounting and control is the same as ours in that sums not expended in one year lapse, or is there a genuine carry-forward under Community arrangements?

There will be a genuine carry-forward. That is why we feel that, with the 300 mua, that will be sufficient. That will enable 400 mua to be available for 1976. In view of this situation, the Council felt that this further 300 mua would be sufficient to meet payments likely to be made in 1976. It accepted that, if payments turned out to be higher than this, a supplementary budget might be required. I want to emphasise that the Council's decisions will in no way hinder implementation of the fund or slow down expenditure.

The Council reduced the Commission's estimated provision for the Social Fund in 1976 by 100 mua. Of this cut 60 mua was in respect of anti-crisis measures intended to assist sectors particularly affected by current economic difficulties. There has been no Council decision in favour of these measures, so, in accordance with the general policy I have explained, this provision was deleted. The Council also decided that a further cut of 40 mua should be made for reasons of general financial stringency.

I need hardly tell the House that we regret this cut in the only area of Community expenditure which is directly concerned with assistance to the unemployed. However, the 400 mua agreed provides a significant increase—24 per cent.—over provision made in the 1975 Budget. The House will also note that the Social Fund falls into the so-called non-obligatory category. This means that the Assembly has the last word on the amount of provision in the budget, and I hope that it will feel able to use its budgetary powers to increase this provision, as it has done in the past.

The United Kingdom is strongly committed to Community aid being granted to non-associated developing countries. The Council agreed to the principle of granting such aid in July 1974, but at the time of the Budget Council meetings decisions had not been made on the methods to put this principle into practice. Again, in accordance with normal policy, this item was deleted at the Council. However, I made it clear that this deletion was without prejudice to subsequent policy decisions of the Council. A statement recording the Council's agreement on this point is in the Council's explanatory memorandum to the draft budget as established. Unfortunately, a subsequent meeting of Development Ministers achieved very little, despite the considerable efforts of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I come to the subject of agriculture on which there is an amendment on the Order Paper. Finally, on 29th September, the Council discussed the provision for agricultural expenditure. It accepted the figure put forward by the Commission as an estimate of continuing the Common agricultural policy in its present form and with support prices at their current levels. As the House will be aware, we are very concerned with the increase in the cost of the CAP. However, as I have explained, the provision in the draft Budget is essentially the result of a forecasting and accounting exercise. Its purpose is to provide the money to carry out agreed Community agricultural policies.

I would have supported any proposal which would have set a target for a real cut in agricultural expenditure coupled with a request to the Agriculture Ministers to make the policy changes necessary to achieve it, but to cut the provision in the budget without changing the policies would achieve nothing. It would merely necessitate a supplementary budget later in the year to restore the cut. For this reason I joined the other member States in accepting the proposed provision, but I did so only after making clear to the Council that the United Kingdom strongly supported the German desire to make cuts. As I have indicated, making cuts in estimates would achieve nothing. It is the actual policy that needs to be changed. This is being pursued vigorously in the stocktaking of the CAP. I am, therefore, happy to say to my hon. Friends that I am prepared to recommend to the House the acceptance of the amendment, which is worded as follows: in line 2, at end add

'further notes that the proportion of the Community Budget allocated to the agricultural sector has increased to 73·6 per cent. of the estimated expenditure; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to continue its efforts to obtain radical changes to the Common Agricultural Policy'.

The Budget Council is not, of course, the forum for dealing with policy.

The FEOGA report for 1974 is another matter on which I should like to say a few words. Before turning to the Scrutiny Committee's reports, I shall deal briefly with the report of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund for 1974—that is, Document R/2158/75, which is included among the documents to be considered in the debate. As well as setting out the main financial facts, the report deals with what the Commission describes as "irregularities". They include mistakes as well as frauds, and, given the complexity of the CAP rules, mistakes are inevitable.

The total number of irregularities which have been discovered is small in relation to total expenditure by the CAP. Nevertheless the Government's view, which I know is shared by the House, is that the subject is an important one. This view is shared by the Commission. During the past two years, with strong support from the United Kingdom, it has intensified its efforts to improve control over CAP expenditure. In October 1973 it set up a special committee of inquiry to examine the possibility of fraud and irregularity in the management of Community funds. Improvements are now in train as a result of the Committee's examination of the milk products sector and the oil seed and olive oil sectors, and the beef sector will next be examined.

On the general question of financial control, the United Kingdom has taken a new initiative. The Prime Minister has asked for financial control to be discussed at the European Council meeting on 1st and 2nd December, when we expect a sympathetic response from member States which are concerned about this.

I turn now to deal with the main points which have been made in the valuable reports by the Scrutiny Committee.

Are we to understand that my right hon. Friend's dictum, from which not many will dissent, is that effective cuts in the agricultural policy budget can be made only if a change of policy is agreed, and that the Government are committed to making serious efforts to change that policy? During the next 12 months, where will those efforts be made?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is little point in changing the amount reserved in the budget—which is an estimating procedure—if the agricultural policy remains the same and all the commitments are there. If they are not included in the budget they will have to be provided later. My hon. Friend goes on to ask where we shall pursue changes of policy. That is for the Council of Agricultural Ministers and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The stocktaking procedure is new going on.

Is the right hon. Gentleman seized of the point that the elimination of the monetary compensatory payment will significantly reduce the cost of the CAP and also bring greater equity into the position of British agriculture? Would he care to comment on that issue?

It would be better for detailed points to be put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. I am dealing with the budget, and we are discussing the budget estimates. I must leave to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture the details of how best to cut agricultural expenditure. My right hon. Friend will be concerned with the detail in the Council of Agricultural Ministers. It is perfectly reasonable to leave agricultural matters to the Minister of Agriculture, especially when I trust him to deal with them.

Surely the Chief Secretary has a view on these matters. Are we to understand that the Treasury just sits around waiting to know what will be brought back by the Minister of Agriculture? Every time he returns from Brussels waving a piece of paper and claiming another victory, I put my hands in my pockets.

This is the expenditure budget, and if I were to discuss every item in it I should be usurping the position of every Minister in the Government. I do that from time to time in my position as Chief Secretary, and I am expected to be an expert not only on every subject which involves expenditure but on the detail of every subject. I should be happy to discuss the details at another time, but as we wish to deal with the budget documents which are before us it might be more beneficial to the House if we discussed those documents rather than the details of how we hope to achieve expenditure cuts in FEOGA.

I know that the Chief Secretary is anxious to display before us all the details of the budget. I see his difficulty in not wanting to go into detail on agricultural matters, but it would be of assistance to the House if he could give us the figures of the monetary compensation that is attracted as a result of the increasing disparity in trade rates between the United Kingdom and other members of the Common Market. This is a monetary and agricultural matter and it is important that we should have all the facts.

I shall be happy to give the hon. Gentleman the facts available when I wind up the debate. The monetary compensation adjustments are one reason why in 1975 we shall have net receipts rather than net expenditure, but that is not the only reason. We have done well out of beef this year on the actual figures I quoted, in addition to the monetary compensation adjustments. I shall, with permission, deal with the questions which the hon. Gentleman raised when I say a few words at the end of the debate.

I come to the Scrutiny Committee's report. First, there is the question of the budget timetable. During August I had to tell the Committee that, in spite of pressure from member States, the Commission intended to present the preliminary draft budget in a form which included only dummy figures for agricultural expenditure and to follow this by an amending letter shortly before the Budget Council. This allowed very little time for scrutiny of these documents by member States and the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee in its Third Special Report noted this, and I was able to draw it to the Commission's attention and to have some discussion of the timetable at the first Budget Council. The unsatisfactory nature of the arrangements in 1975 was by then water under the bridge.

As the House knows from our debate in July, however, the question of a revised budget timetable is currently under discussion. I hope that the disquiet expressed by member States this year will have given this some impetus, but the Council is at present awaiting the views of the Assembly.

The Scrutiny Committee also suggested that consideration should be given to the possibility of a new Supply document being provided in the early part of the financial year giving the most up-to-date figures for past and future expenditure. Its purpose would be to enable the House, as well as the Council and the Assembly, to scrutinise more effectively the financial implications of Community policy. We shall, of course, be considering carefully this suggestion of a new document, in the light of the existing information provided by the Community.

The preliminary draft budget documents contain the relatively new development of budget expenditure over the succeeding three years—that is the period 1976 to 1978. This document is also considered by the Assembly and Council, although on a rather different timetable to that for the budget itself. The document provides an indication of expected Community expenditure both from policies already agreed and from those currently under discussion.

Looking to the past, the Commission's annual report on the revenue and expenditure account provides the sort of detail available in the United Kingdom Appropriation Accounts. This document is normally published only when the report of the Audit Board on the accounts and the Commission's comments on them are sent to the Assembly and Council. This can be up to 18 months after the end of the year to which the accounts relate, although both the Commission and the Audit Board are endeavouring to speed this up. However the report on the accounts is made available to member States on an informal basis before then. It is at that stage still subject to amendment but I would propose, if the House would find this useful, to arrange for the document to be deposited without waiting for the Audit Board's report.

Perhaps I may conclude with a final word on the budget. The draft budget incorporating the changes has now been sent to the Assembly, where it is under discussion. The Assembly can suggest modifications to so-called obligatory expenditure and may make amendments to the non-obligatory items within a limit set by the maximum rate. Other hon. Members might be able to give the House an idea of the likely view that fellow Assembly delegates are taking on the draft budget. Their proposed modifications and amendments will in any event be deposited in the House when they are received towards the end of this month. At that stage the Council will meet again to consider the Assembly's proposals before the budget is finally established on or before 5th December. At that meeting I shall take account both of the views of the Scrutiny Committee and of what is said in this debate.

I have to remind the House that Mr. Speaker has informed the House that he has not selected the amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) and his hon. Friends. However, I have no doubt that the House will have taken note of the observations of the Chief Secretary about its substance.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I distinctly heard the Chief Secretary say that he proposed to accept the amendment that you now say has not been selected. Could you clarify the position?

The position is quite clear. I said that no doubt the House will have taken note of the Chief Secretary's observations about the substance of that amendment.

8.4 p.m.

We are grateful to the Chief Secretary for the way in which he has explained fully the broad outline of the budget and the procedure. In the main—and it is right that it should be so—he spoke for the Council, but three institutions are involved in the budget, namely, the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament.

I, too, want to congratulate the Scrutiny Committee for the work that it has done in and out of season, and sometimes when the House was not sitting. I have regarded with amazement the way in which it has got through the backlog of work which it originally had and I am pleased that it is now sufficiently up to date that we can consider two budgets in one year, the last one well after time and this one in time. That is a great tribute to its work.

If we look at the budgets of any institution we can usually tell a great deal about it, in particular its stage of evolution and its objectives. The Community is a young organisation. Its structure and in particular its budget are very much in the development stage. In the main, the European budget is not a policy or decision-making document. Its shape stems largely from decisions already taken, or is a consequence of decisions not having been taken. That may seem obvious, but I hope that the point will become clearer later. At present, it is very much out of balance, as is indicated by the amendment, partly because the agricultural sector takes too large a proportion of the resources and partly because there has been a substantial cutback on other appropriations that were originally included in the preliminary draft budget prepared and submitted by the Commission.

In 1974–75 the agricultural sector took 72·92 per cent. of the total budget. In the preliminary draft budget drawn up this year by the Commission it took 68·16 per cent., which is a drop. We thought that this might be a sign that matters were going in the right direction. However, when the draft was finally approved by the Council, it had gone up to 73·63 per cent., which is higher than last year's figure. I appreciate that these figures are based entirely on round figures and that the Council did not seek in any way to alter the figures originally put in by the Commission, for the reasons stated by it on page 8 of Volume 7 of the documents listed in the explanatory memorandum.

The truth is that this year the Council was determined to cut back on expenditure wherever possible. We understand the reasons for that. In the main, we sympathise with that course. However, I am bound to say that in certain cases it was more a case of the Council making it appear that it was doing so rather than actually doing so. Yet at the same time it recognised that the major item of expenditure in the agricultural sector for 1976 was not capable of being assessed accurately at that time. Therefore, the Council has made no attempt to adjust the Commission's preliminary figures.

The Council has had to look to the other sectors for reductions. There is no doubt that adjustment in the agricultural sector will inevitably be necessary by way of supplementary budgets during the coming year. Even if we accept the general logic of this argument—namely, that it believes the figures put in by the Commission alone because it cannot accurately assess what the changes will be—none the less the European Parliament, of which I have the honour to be a member, confirms that the draft budget gives no indication whatever that the Council is prepared to apply to the agricultural sector the disciplines it applies to the other sectors of the budget.

indicated dissent.

From an examination of those other sectors of the budget, two main reasons stand out for the Council's reduction of the Commission's original figures. Perhaps I may quickly run through the summary on page 17 of Volume 7 and pick out the figures more or less as the right hon. Gentleman did. The Council has taken 100 million units of account away from the social sector, as the Chief Secretary so rightly remarked. The reason given for that is that there has been a lack of anti-crisis measures. That is what he said. But what he has not said is whether he thinks that there ought to be anti-crisis measures and, indeed, whether he thinks that there will be anti-crisis measures.

As far as I know, the Commission makes its judgments carefully. The Commission has decided that in the social sector there will be these expenses in the next year. We have not heard one word from the right hon. Gentleman as to why he and the Council feel that the Commission was wrong to think that this money would be required in the next year.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear me when I was dealing with this matter. I pointed out that the reason why it was agreed that it should be removed was that there had been no policy decision on the matter. That was the reason. It was not because I was against it, but simply because the Council had not taken a decision.

I was about to say that, and I am pointing to the difference. The Commission has made that decision that this money will be necessary in the coming year. The Council has given no reason why it will not be needed. All it has said is that the decision has not yet been made. I do not think I misquote the right hon. Gentleman when I say that.

The only other point I wish to make is that I believe it right that we should question closely any reductions sought, for whatever reason, in this field at present. I should have thought that expenditure in relation to the Social Fund naturally became more important as the difficulties of unemployment grew. Therefore, we shall watch this matter with care. I know the reason that the right hon. Gentleman puts forward, but I want to bring in that argument later.

It would be interesting for the House to know, and it would help me when I go to the next Budget Council meeting, whether it is the Opposition's view that we should increase this sort of expenditure to help with unemployment.

I think that when the amendments come out next week the right hon. Gentleman will find that they will be dealt with in very great detail in the European Parliament. However, what I am trying to say is simply this. The Commission has said that in its view this expenditure is necessary. I should like to know at what stage the Council will say that the Commission was wrong in coming to that conclusion, for whatever reasons, and I should like to have the reasons spelled out. However, for the moment the Council has delayed its decision, and I shall discuss that later.

Again, the Regional Fund has been cut. It has been cut back in payment appropriations by £150 million on the ground that this sum is not likely to be paid in 1976. Here again, this is something that in the European Parliament next week we must probe very closely. In the Budget Committee I have probed the Commission as far as I have been able.

I am bound to say that I am far from satisfied that the Commission genuinely believes that its original estimate of requirement for 1976 is wrong. It may well be that the Council genuinely believes that that is the case, but in looking through these cuts I have been led to feel at times, knowing the general desire for cutting, that it would be convenient if the actual payment appropriations were at this stage to be at the lowest possible figure, and got through with a measure of agreement, and then the supplementary budgets were allowed to look after themselves at a later date.

Again, we have the cuts in the research, technology, industrial and energy sectors. I am no expert on these matters. Hon. Members here and elsewhere will doubtless have much to say about these cuts. But it is a fact, as I have been told, that the cuts envisaged endanger projects that ought to be treated on a multi-annual basis rather than on a stop-go basis Indeed, in certain sectors it appears that very skilled staff will be paid and budgeted for this year, but that no budgeting has been made to pay for any work for them to do. Therefore, here again, I suspect, we may well see some form of supplementary budget coming into operation.

Again, applying the Committee's rule, the aid given for the development and co-operation sector, the aid to the Maghreb countries, Malta and the like, has been cut out for the time being because negotiations have either been halted or are still proceeding. It is worth noting that already finality is being reached in certain areas, even as recently as after the draft budget, with the result that we are already up to date. If that is so, it means that it must have been known fairly accurately that this money would be spent in 1976.

I have spent some time on this matter because I believe that out of an examination of these figures, however briefly one looks at them, come two main reasons for the cuts. The first is that no final decision has yet been taken by the Council. If one is to accept that method of working, one ought to be told whether the Council feels that the appropriation is almost certain to be required. The other reason is that the sums provisionally appropriated are unlikely to be spent in 1976, and yet we are given the assurance, certainly on the Regional Fund, that a supplementary budget will be introduced if that proves to be necessary.

It is clear that there will be several substantial supplementary budgets in 1976. It is the view of the Parliament, expressed in the general debate on the budget last month, that the rôle of Parliament is being turned into that of an accountant rather than that of a politician. I agree with that view, although I took exception to it. Speaking quite impartially, and treating the right hon. Gentleman entirely as, as I am myself, a member of that worthwhile profession, I protested about the misuse of the term "accountant", because, as I explained, an accountant must give a true and fair view when he presents his accounts. Sadly, I was bound to say that my experience of Budgets, which goes back for a number of years, is that if accountants presented their accounts in the same way as politicians so often present their Budgets, accountants would spend much of their working life in gaol.

I am glad to see that that had some reflection yesterday, because I note from a Press release from the European Parliament that the reference now is to a budget for cashiers, not to a budget for accountants. I think that our comments have been met. This leads me to say a few words, as the right hon. Gentleman did, about the procedure and the whole system of budget making.

Before the hon. Gentleman starts to give an analysis of procedures, may I direct his mind to a simple point? During our lengthy arguments in the House, first on entry and then on remaining in the Community, we were promised that we should make some progress on reducing the proportion of the budget spent on agriculture and that we should make progress towards securing an increased proportion of the budget being spent on regional expenditure. In this set of figures that has not been achieved. Nor does it appear to be the trend that we shall achieve it in the near future. Therefore, does not the hon. Gentleman look at these accounts with complete dismay?

The Chief Secretary pops up in considerable dismay on frequent occasions. I can only say that I regard these accounts with complete dismay, but I am not a member of the Council. In the European Parliament we shall be raising criticisms of the accounts. One of our criticisms will be on the agricultural sector, because we believe that it takes up too much money.

I have also been questioning the amounts of cash needed next year for the Regional Fund. I do not believe that the amount that the Council has put into the draft budget is enough and next year there will have to be supplementary budgets for this sector. Progress is slow. We could be making progress in these directions, but at present we are not making the progress we should be making. There will be great criticism of the failure to touch the agriculture sector when we meet next week. I promise the hon. Gentleman that, because I have seen a number of amendments and there have been lengthy discussions in the Budget Committee and I have seen what has come through from the other committees.

I agree entirely with the Chief Secretary that supplementary budgets are necessary at times. The question is when they are necessary. I believe that they are necessary only for the unforeseeable and the unavoidable. In many cases the Council may argue, as it has argued, that it must not be inhibited from making a final decision because something has already gone through the budget. As the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, there are ways round this—by means of putting funds into the reserve sector, namely, Chapter 98, or even by putting them in and then blocking them, which seems to be a new procedure being adopted. Therefore, the Council's right to withhold its final decision can remain intact, but still the full sums which are foreseen as being spent in the coming year can be put in.

What is more, this is in accord with the Treaty itself and also with the Financial Regulation. Article 199 of the Treaty states:

"All items of revenue and expenditure shall be included…in the Budget."

Article 1(1) of the Financial Regulation states:

"The Budget of the European Communities is the act which makes provision for and authorises the expected revenue and expenditure of the Communities."

In other words, it is envisaged that we should estimate as closely as we can the expenditure in the coming year and set against that the revenue and the resources to pay for that expenditure.

I believe that is the right approach. I know that the Council does not agree with that. The Commission disagrees with the Council. The Treaty disagrees with it. The Financial Regulation disagrees with it. The European Parliament disagrees with it. Indeed, on occasion in the past even the Council itself has disagreed with it.

We believe that the budget should consist of as accurate an assessment of the year's expenditure as possible, and that should be set against a statement of how the funds to meet that expenditure are to be provided. Such a statement in no way inhibits the Council's final decision making. If it has not given formal approval to a project at the time of the budget, it can make temporary provision either into Chapter 98 or the line can be blocked. Then, if approval is given finally, the Council can make a transfer to the appropriate chapter.

The fact is that as we move towards "own-resources" financing and particularly to the final system through the use of VAT, the system of having several supplementary budgets during the year will become intolerable, for clearly no one will want to initiate frequent changes within the VAT rate. That is too big a subject for this debate. I merely want to state that the basis of budgeting I am putting forward is made extremely difficult by the fact that the largest entry, namely, the agricultural entry, will always be incapable of exact estimation so far ahead of the year itself. That makes the whole forecasting business a bit of a farce.

I believe that we shall move into the "own-resources" system, perhaps later than sooner, but eventually it will come to pass; and so we must try to budget accurately at the beginning of the year for the expenditure and then subsequently for the revenue. If we are to do that, not only have we to reduce the amount of the agricultural demand on the budget, but we must consider moving the EEC financial year to a date beginning after the agricultural review in the spring. I shall not go beyond stating that as a matter for thought.

I want finally to say a few words about the financing control of the EEC expenditure. The Budget Committee is consulting the Commission closely with a view to changing the Financial Regulation—first with regard to the budget, for example in distinguishing between commitment and payment of appropriations. In some parts of the budget there is that distinction. In others it is still to be made. We are agreed that such changes will be made in time for next year's budget.

Secondly, consultation is taking place with regard to increased parliamentary authority over such things as the carry-forward of appropriations from one year to the next and also the transfering of sums from one sector of the budget to another. At the moment, we have little or no power in these matters. It is a farce, bearing in mind the increasing authority we are acquiring in other sectors.

We are now to have a much-needed audit court by a change in the treaties. When does the right hon. Gentleman think that it will be set up? When does he think the changes will be ratified by this country? I believe that the court is the single most necessary new arm of enforcement that needs to be set up. We in the European Parliament must, in addition, continue to press for some form of public accounts committee, as the European Conservative Group has been doing for several years.

We are working hard in the European Parliament to try to play our proper rôle in the scrutiny and amendment of the budget, but the time factor is probably still the biggest single hurdle we have to overcome. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman indicate that he, too, had a full realisation of that problem. I hope that we shall be able to make changes which will at any rate ease the situation next year. In having this debate today, in time for the final debate in the European Parliament, we have achieved a success which some of us, when we debated last year's budget, doubted was possible. But we have achieved it and the credit goes to the Scrutiny Committee and I again congratulate it.

We welcome the chance of hearing the views of hon. Members. We shall be able to take those views with us next week to Luxembourg, where the detailed debate will be held in the European Parliament and a vote finally taken next Thursday.

8.32 p.m.

My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in his usual generous way, said some very kind things about the amendment. He would if he could and would that he could, but he cannot, but he does in principle. I know that in making those observations he was paying lip service not simply to the words of the amendment but to the spirit and content. When the armoured car sets out for Brussels to try to persuade these people of the changes needed in the common agricultural policy, some of the passengers may want to divert via Damascus to put the final seal on their conversion, because they were standing here six months ago saying that by and large everything in the garden of the CAP was lovely and that the effort had to be made on a continuing basis.

I regret that Mr. Speaker did not feel able to call the amendment, which would have added these words to the motion:

'further notes that the proportion of the Community Budget allocated to the agricultural sector has increased to 73·6 per cent. of the estimated expenditure; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to continue its efforts to obtain radical changes to the Common Agricultural Policy'.

Hon. Members have mentioned that 73·63 per cent. of the Community budget goes in this way. My constituents do not shop in percentages. Shopkeepers have an annoying habit of demanding cash. Of each £1, for example, 73·63p goes into this part of the Community activity. Some of it is paid by our taxpayers. It is a lot of money.

I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Shaw) tell us that this budget provision had started out at 72·92 per cent. and this had then been reduced but that the reduction had turned out to be false and we are therefore back to the figure of 73·63 per cent. We are entitled to ask what we get from the CAP for this massive amount of money. The obvious results are mountains of this and lakes of that resulting from the gross incompetence of large sections of the agriculture industry in the Community which leads to inefficient overproduction.

There are two reasons why radical changes are needed in the CAP. The first reason will probably not please the Opposition, but in the haste of the last Conservative Government to take this country into the Market behind the backs of the British people they not only failed to negotiate proper arrangements for agriculture and for changes in the policy, but did not even try. The principles of the policy were accepted root and branch. The Conservatives did not even make an attempt to negotiate long-term arrangements for our own agriculture industry, let alone negotiate on other matters included in the policy. If an attempt had been made at that time, it would have forced the pace of change in the policy.

The second reason—I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture sometimes does not pay enough attention to this point—is that a policy designed and constructed to fit the needs of six nations is now being pulled and stretched like an out-of-shape cardigan over the heads of nine nations, three of which are among the largest and most efficient food producers in the world. We go on pretending that the basic principles and practices of the policy can be extended to fit round the necks of these nine nations. There are other reasons why changes are needed and not only on grounds of cost, waste and overproduction.

The present policy takes little or no account of our growing need to plan for the world's production of food and to maximise our production so that no one in the world need go hungry. That is hardly taken into account, yet surely the principles of an agricultural policy should include the production and distribution of food.

The policy is wasteful of money and misuses it. It attempts, through the agricultural sector, to deal with deep-seated social problems which are no part of the Community's agricultural sector. For example, the man and wife with half a hectare on the outskirts of Stuttgart where the son works in industry and comes home to help out at the weekend are confused with farmers. Those people are more like allotment holders in this country. There is a vitally important social problem of millions of people in this position, certainly in West Germany and France. Why are these problems being loaded on the back of the agricultural sector?

The hon. Gentleman has made many inaccurate statements, but he must not be allowed to carry on with the one he is making now. The whole policy and price mechanism is geared to the modern farm. It is laid down quite clearly in the policy that it does not include someone with half a hectare or even two hectares.

The hon. Gentleman must not accuse me of misstatements just because he does not agree with me. I do not accept what he said, and I thought it was generally agreed that we needed to improve the efficiency of the policy.

In its operation the CAP is fundamentally anti-consumer. It positively encourages inefficient overproduction and then forces the consumer to pay, not once but twice. It uses the money of the consumer as a taxpayer to foot the bill for intervention buying to keep prices artificially high. I understand the reasons for that from the producer's point of view, but I am considering the effect on the consumer. The consumer then pays over the counter the second time the prices which are kept artificially high. The policy denies the consumer the benefits of a good harvest or a successful period of production.

If the British people had understood before 5th June what the real cost of this policy was, I doubt whether the outcome of that referendum would have been the same. How many of those millions who were wooed into voting "Yes" knew that they were voting for this massive amount of expenditure on inefficiency and expensive extravagance? However, the votes are cast and that argument is over. Our job now is to encourage the Government to force radical changes in the CAP to make it work for the benefit of efficient producers, consumers and the hungry world.

I am at least glad that the amendment, as well as having the blessing of the Chief Secretary, has the support of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. He told the House on 17th October:

"First, there is the fundamental need to ensure that, while providing efficient producers with a reasonable assurance, the CAP avoids imposing excessive burdens on either consumers or national or Community budgets."

He went on to say:

"I welcome the Commission's recognition that the costly accumulation of wasteful surpluses must be discouraged."

He then said

"accumulating mountains or lakes of unwanted produce is just not sensible".—[Official Report, 17th October 1975; Vol. 897, c. 1721–23.]

If our urgent need is, as I believe it to be, to maximise our own food production, we must ensure that radical changes are made in the CAP which allow that to take place. We will neglect the expansion of our home agriculture literally at our peril. I therefore ask my right hon. Friends to accept the intent and purpose of the amendment and try to put real steam behind the efforts needed to make and secure major revisions in that policy.

8.43 p.m.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate because I am a member of the Scrutiny Committee. We reported that this matter raised questions of political importance and that it should be further considered by the House.

There are not many hon. Members present to consider what we call a matter of major importance. The House certainly seems to have tremendous faith in our Committee. It is quite happy to let us get on with the work. Even when we report something as being of political importance, few hon. Members come to put their views to us in debate. It is possible that we are making terrible mistakes and that we are not reporting the matters which are of political importance.

It seems to me that the House of Commons is quite happy to leave the work in our hands. I only hope that when something has been reported and the House has not really taken note of it, we shall not be blamed for not making a little more noise about this important problem.

I may be ruled out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should like to take up one point raised by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett). His bark really is worse than his bite. He is quite a decent fellow, actually, when one gets to know him. If I may say so, he speaks an awful not of nonsense in the House, but outside he is quite reasonable. He has talked about artificially high prices. It is true that there are one or two commodities in regard to which this is true. All that I ask him and the House to consider is that there has to be a price which will cover the cost of production, otherwise the food will not be produced.

There are instances of this where people are going out of production because the price they are getting does not cover the cost of production. The hon. Member must not exaggerate on this. He talked about milk mountains. It is not milk but skimmed milk powder of which there is a surplus. It is the by-product, the waste product, of butter production.

With great respect, I did not mention a milk mountain.

Well, a lake, then.

No.

With great respect, the hon. Member did. He ought to get his facts right.

It is easy to criticise the Community budget machinery and the proposals that have been made, but the EEC has very real difficulties. I am not condoning it but am simply emphasising that there are very real difficulties. The whole business is enormously complex. Once a mistake is made it can become a very big one. It can grow and grow. Sudden changes of policy by Ministers involve increases in expenditure. One of the great problems is the sudden change of policy resulting from political pressure. This again means that expenditure is increased very rapidly.

I hope that the House will try to be constructive. There are hon. Members who are still opposed to our being in the EEC. It seems as though the battle is still on in their minds. I hope that hon. Members will at least try to be constructive in their criticisms of these budget proposals. It is very easy to be destructive. I hope hon. Members will be constructive so that we can try to solve this problem.

I now turn to ground on which obviously I am very shaky. I refer to the supplementary budgets. We have had a brief from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. May I say that the briefs we receive are, in my view, improving compared with those that were originally produced. All Ministries are now providing much better briefs than we had in the past. The brief provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of token entries. It pointed out that an alternative technique for achieving much the same thing is to introduce a supplementary budget once the policy has been agreed by the Council of Ministers.

I am happier with a supplementary budget than I am with a token entry. I take it that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agrees with me in this, but I am not too sure. If there is a supplementary budget, once the policy has been agreed with the Council of Ministers, at least this can be looked at, scrutinised and checked. I am in favour of a very tight original budget and then a supplementary one later on.

I turn to the effects of the Council's examination, and I begin with the Regional Development Fund. While I am all for pruning where we can, that is one fund that I believe it is important not to prune, because if we get the regional structure right, which I imagine is what the fund exists to do, we shall no longer have the problems that there are in agriculture in some of the more remote areas. If alternative work is provided, small farmers will not go on producing the floods of milk that have been mentioned, the wine, the olives and so on. I am very much in favour of having the fund working, so that there is alternative work for people in the more remote and difficult areas where they have nothing else to which to turn. I believe that if the regional policy were right the Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund could be reduced. Accordingly, I am a little concerned that the Regional Development Fund has been cut.

I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend can clear one doubt in my mind. In relating the growth of the Regional Fund to a subsequent diminution of the Agricultural Fund, is he assuming that one of the consequences of the growth of the Regional Fund would be that it would be largely spent in those continental European countries whose agricultural structures are giving rise to the surpluses which exercise him?

My hon. Friend has more than just one doubt in his mind. But that is just what I am trying to say. That is the very point. I do not want to see the Regional Fund or the Agricultural Fund grow and grow. I believe that if more attention were paid to the Regional Fund, the Agricultural Fund could be reduced.

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and we should all be grateful to him for his clear elaboration that the growth of the Regional Fund is not to the advantage of the decaying industrial parts of Britain but is to the advantage of reforming continental agriculture.

Yes, although I believe that certain parts of this country could benefit very much from the Regional Fund, particularly as regards agriculture.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain how there can be any possible incentive to farmers to leave unsatisfactory agricultural activity under a prices system which guarantees them masses of money, even if they produce food that nobody wants?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is as simple as that. The point I am putting needs to be considered carefully. Otherwise the Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund will grow and grow, as will prices or the returns to the farmers. Agricultural expenditure must be watched. But the real problem that I see as I look at the CAP is that in many ways not enough discipline is exerted on the farmers. If they had to experience the same discipline as British agriculture experiences through—to give just one example—the Milk Marketing Board, there would not be the floods of milk about which some people are talking. Through the Milk Marketing Board, discipline works back to the farmer because he, too, has to pay for milk promotion and the allocation of milk for particular production—butter, cheese or cream. However, it seems to me that in the Community farmers simply produce milk, and that is the end of it. It is left to the taxpayer to pick up the bill. However, in this country, through the Milk Marketing Board, a real discipline is exerted on the producer. I want the producer to start to pay for the promotion of his product in the CAP.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) was absolutely right when he referred to monetary compensation amounts. I believe that there would be a real reduction in the total cost if we started to get the monetary problem right.

It is easy to criticise the CAP. Mistakes have been made, and the CAP should be adjusted. I have always thought that it should be flexible and should change to meet the needs of the time. There must be the most direct auditing and accountability throughout the whole system. That is an area in which things have gone wrong. The controls should be strengthened. If those who are so critical of the Community and of the CAP in particular would press for much stricter control—this is why I like the idea of a public accounts type of committee—I believe that we should be on the way forward. In any event, if we have a sort of scrutiny committee at least we shall know that these matters are being carefully examined.

If the hon. Gentleman examines page 7 of the voluminous document which I have before me, he will see that in 1973 a special committee of inquiry was instituted to investigate the private enterprise in which various farmers indulged. He will see that in 1974 they still managed to get away with about £2 million by defrauding the Common Market through the various networks involved in the movement of food. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that yet another layer of bureaucratic scrutiny should be added to that which already exists?

I believe that strengthening is important. I am not skilled enough to understand how it should be done, but I believe that something on the lines of a public accounts committee would be the right way in which to proceed. At least we would know that someone was examining the matter. Of course, £2 million is not all that large a sum given the size and scope of the CAP. Wherever there are subsidies, there will be people who will get away with something by various means. That does not mean that we should not examine the situation carefully. I hope that those who are still opposed to the Community and the principle of the CAP will start to bring forward more constructive arguments and proposals so that we may try to get this matter right.

8.58 p.m.

First, I thank the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Shaw) for his courteous answer to my intervention a short time ago. The hon. Gentleman said that, bearing in mind the proportions in the budget, we had not done very well as yet, but that we were hoping to do a little better. I think that that was his reply in a nutshell. I sincerely hope that we all do a little better. The figures may alter, but the proportions will not alter significantly unless the principles change.

We must examine the figures in the budget relating to the CAP and see how they operate. The figures have not been conjured out of the air, although I sometimes think that I may be wrong in that view. The figures arise from the structure of agricultural support.

The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said that when a Minister came back to the United Kingdom to announce a victory, we all had to put our hands in our pockets. The hon. Gentleman speaks for many of us in taking that view. I look with dismay at the proportion of the budget spent on agriculture compared with the amount spent on regional development.

I ask whether this budget shows any strong indication of improvement. I have my doubts. I speak as somebody who was a dedicated opponent of our entry into the EEC and indeed of our remaining in it, but I do not regard it as right to fight those battles over and over again.

Why not?

Because we went into the EEC by a sizeable majority, I would agree with the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) that as responsible people we should scrutinise these accounts and seek to analyse their consequences.

We were promised progress towards reducing the proportion of the budget spent on agriculture. Perhaps there was an element of wishful thinking on my part, but I regarded that as an encouraging prospect. I now see my hopes dimming, because the reverse is proving to be the case. We have made little progress in this direction and the situation is moving increasingly to our disadvantage.

Roughly 3 per cent. of the working population of Great Britain are engaged in agricultural work compared with a figure of about 10 per cent. of the working population engaged in agriculture on the Continent. How should we seek to reconcile that disproportion within a common structure of accounting? So far we have been out-manoeuvred in the discussions and in diplomatic moves centred on the structure and trend of the accounts.

We can see the political pressures at work. European farmers are encouraged by the present structure to create surpluses. In a system where there is an administrative rather than a market price, sometimes the figures are right and at other times they are wrong. It is true to say that the figures are more often wrong than right. Whatever the disadvantages of the old deficiency payments scheme, there was a market price on which to hang agricultural support. There was at least a market indication but, as the accounts show, that does not happen now.

I turn to page 6 of Volume 7, which is the explanatory memorandum, in respect of administrative and operating expenditure. I wish to refer to that document because one factor related to it fundamentally affects a small firm in my constituency. We see from that document that the administrative expenditure has increased by 21·14 per cent. and that expenditure on intervention will increase by 19·59 per cent. It is evident that the trend is in the wrong direction.

I want to focus my remarks on some of the administrative expenditures arising from the intervention appartus. There should be a cost-benefit analysis of this, although I shudder to think what it would reveal. Part of the costs are never revealed in a budget statement of this sort. Some of those costs accrue to many small firms in this country, at least one of them in my constituency.

I have frequently heard Conservative Members talk about small firms. I am a supporter of the small firm and the enterprise that often arises from it. In my constituency there is a small firm of ships' chandlers. It supplies and purveys food to vessels in Ipswich Dock. It is directly concerned with the Intervention Board and all of its costs. It is a three-man firm, industrious and enterprising. The three directors came to me to complain in some despair about the Intervention Board and all its works. If the firm buys butter at a given price to sell to the ship at a given selling price for stores, it tries to adjust the selling price to the cost price to make a small profit.

Before doing this it has to negotiate a well-laid minefield, brought about by some of the workings of the Intervention Board. There is either the monetary compensating amount or the levy, which can vary from week to week. The levy figures can be obtained by telephoning the Intervention Board at Reading. This firm has to make extensive telephone calls to discover the figures, which sometimes run into four or five decimal points.

The firm must run the whole gauntlet of administrative expense. It is faced by a complex of codes and a mountain of invoices, all in separate envelopes. One great pile of documents, which had been processed by a computer, was opened by a director before me. It was like a great, elongated concertina. I had thought that butter was a simple commodity. I am a consumer who buys butter over the counter. I know now that it is not quite as simple as I thought.

Let us suppose that this firm has a packet of biscuits, which is purveys to the vessel in Ipswich Dock. There is a different levy, or monetary compensating amount, on most of the elements that go into the packet of biscuits—or a tin of soup or packet of this or that. There are separate figures for each. The hilarious climax to this is that once the firm tries to calculate its transactions and estimate the profit it will make, it cannot discover until weeks later what the balance will be between the levies and the monetary compensating amounts. The firm does not know whether it will hand out more money or receive money. It is a nightmare for a small firm. I am told that by comparison VAT is mathematics for Noddy.

I was informed of the difficulties encountered in running a small business and of the need for the Intervention Board to make adjustments. I explored the literature of the Intervention Board in the Library. Some of our researchers in the Library have their work cut out to keep up with it. That being so, how can we expect a small business, which is flexible and operating from day to day, to keep up with it? The answer is that it cannot do so.

I feel strongly about this matter. Before arriving at a significant alteration in the structure of these accounts, we must produce a great deal of determined effort. I hope that we shall fight with the gloves off, as that is what the other Community members do when they use their slide rules to calculate what is to their national advantage. I hope that we shall hold our own.

9.12 p.m.

There is an atmosphere of bewilderment in what there is of the House tonight on finding itself confronted by something that is called a budget and that is so unlike all habitual assumptions connected with the word "budget". The Chamber ought to be crowded to suffocation. There ought to be the odd top hat here and there. The Galleries should be full to the roof.

The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), not unnaturally, took it amiss that, after the work done by the Scrutiny Committee, when the budget came before the House in a three-hour debate, there was such flaccid interest in the whole matter. The Chief Secretary, in almost his first words this evening, placed his finger upon the difference between this budget and our Budget, which we would be tempted to call a real Budget, when he said that our Budgets were about taxation, and this budget is about expenditure. There, indeed, lies a much more profound difference than perhaps he was conscious of when he said that.

A Budget for us is the debate upon Ways and Means resolutions. It is a debate upon the granting of taxation and the assent to taxation. Although that may be elementary textbook stuff, Parliament—as we understand Parliament—is still inseparable from the granting of taxation by the representatives of the people.

There are certain references in these documents to revenue and to where the money will come from. But the taxation that underlies it is not to be granted in this House. I think that I am right in saying that it will not enter into any of the Estimates that we shall pass. The doors of the Consolidated Fund are open by statute to whatever wagons may be driven through them by the European Economic Community.

The taxation will not be granted by the Assembly or European Parliament either. The hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Shaw) spoke with some exhilaration about taking the views of the House this evening upon the budget and then putting those views forward in that great democratic assembly that from time to time he attends. But that assembly does not grant the taxes. It has nothing to do with the revenue. It has no control of the revenue. So we look elsewhere.

Ex hypothesi, of course, the Commission does not grant the taxes. Who does? Roughly speaking, no one does. If anyone can be said to grant the taxation, I suppose that it is the Ministers collectively assembled in the Council of Ministers who resolve upon the policies that result in the expenditure automatically financed under the treaty structure of the EEC. So the essential basis, the procedure, from which all our liberties in this country and all our powers in this House have grown, is non-existent, by nature and by principle, in the EEC.

For that reason, it is idle to talk of controlling expenditure. In the last resort, the expenditure, whether it be of a king, oligarchy, or whoever it is, is made possible by those who grant or withhold the taxes. That is how our power in this House grew. It is idle to talk about the Government placing their stamp upon the expenditures of the Community, it is idle to express aspirations for altering the percentage of one type of expenditure and another, when the essence of budgetary power is, by definition, lacking. All that it will resolve into is a haggling match in the Council of Ministers. That is not budgetary control. That is not control of expenditure and therefore of policy as this House knows it and understands it.

But perhaps someone will say "You wait until 1978, my boy, or perhaps a year or two later. You wait until there is an elected assembly. You wait until the European Parliament is directly elected. Then all that you aspire to will presently be realised."

This House will do a great deal of introspection about parliaments, elected assemblies and legislatures in the course of the coming months. I shall oppose it, of course; but, for the sake of hypothesis, let the European Assembly or Parliament be directly elected. It will get not a whit more power unless it can subvert the entire constitution of the EEC. It will get not a whit more genuine power or control of expenditure unless the elected European Parliament is to be, as this Parliament was in the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, an assembly that is summoned, because without it, the Commission cannot get money, because it alone has the power to grant taxes, as this House did in those times at the request of some sovereign.

I do not know whether it is the intention, with an elected Parliament, that it shall grant the taxation. I do not know whether the budget of the Community is to be subject to the grant of taxation on an annual basis by that elected Parliament. I suspect it will not be.

As for expenditure, we read that the Assembly may make modifications to proposals. I do not know whether those modifications include proposed increases in expenditure—

Yes.

They do? All the better. If those modifications include increases, that is not parliamentary responsibility: that is parliamentary irresponsibility. That is a proposal for expenditure by those who will bear no responsibility for the manner in which that expenditure is financed.

The linguistic charade of equating with the institutions of the Community the institutions we know and talk about in terms of Parliament, Budgets, representation, Supply, and Ways and Means, is mere mystification. There is no reality behind it.

I am disappointed that neither the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett), to whom we owe the excellent and welcome amendment on the Order Paper, nor the gallant—though not in the parliamentary sense—hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) seems prepared to follow his argument to its consequences. They say that now that the referendum is over, we have to accept that the United Kingdom is a part of the EEC and do our best with it.

But the point about the EEC is that we cannot do our best with it. It is totally incompatible with the fundamental notions of the British people about democracy. It is totally incompatible with anything that is within the comprehension of this House in terms of control over the executive. It is a monstrosity that is autocratic, bureaucratic and undemocratic by its very constitution and nature, and that constitution and nature will not be altered in 1978 or thereabouts by direct elections.

I protest against the idea that seems to be growing up that the electoral mistake we made on 5th June this year is irreparable. We have made electoral mistakes before, but they are all repairable. This one is repairable, too, but, as with other electoral mistakes, a little course of practical education for the electorate is necessary.

I suppose that these dreary proceedings tonight—I mean no disrespect to anyone who has taken part in them, including the present speaker—are a tiny morsel of the remorseless process of education that will result in that electoral disaster, like other electoral disasters that have gone before, being recovered and reversed.

9.23 p.m.

I hope that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will forgive me if I come back a little later to his remarks. I wish to raise only two matters, neither of which was touched on by the Chief Secretary.

The first is the diminution in the draft budget of the amount allocated for disbursement by the Regional Development Fund. It is referred to in the documents. I am concerned that between the provisional draft budget and the draft budget the amount has been changed from 450 million units of account to 300 mua. That is explained in the explanatory memorandum as reflecting the Council's estimate of the rate at which the Commission will be able to disburse the funds at its disposal and the likelihood of substantial funds remaining unspent at the end of 1975.

Representing as I do one of the development areas, I am concerned that the fund should have been extremely slow in getting off the ground and that there should be sums remaining unspent after 1975. I want to explore the Chief Secretary's mind on this question because I hope that it is more a legacy from 1975 than advance thinking that in 1976 the fund will not get going under full steam.

In the development areas, as elsewhere in the country, unemployment is rising, there are great difficulties and the fund should be a source of great assistance to us. I hope that the Chief Secretary will tell us why so much was unspent in the last year and that he will reassure us that the full impetus of the Government in the Council of Ministers will remain behind the purposes of the Regional Development Fund.

Are we satisfied that the applications are coming in fast enough and that they are plentiful enough? When I spoke with members of the Commission in Brussels some months ago, I was left with the impression that they would welcome true administrative devolution to Scotland, in advance of whatever we may decide here, in the sense that applications should go direct via the Scottish Office to the Commission and not through the Department of Industry in London.

Since then some responsibilities have been shifted from the Department of Industry to the Scottish Office. However, I hope that the Scottish Office will play a part in this. I have said before and I say again that, in advance of legislative devolution, there is no reason why the Scottish Office should not have even now the kind of liaison office in Brussels which the German Federal State already has in that city.

The hon. Gentleman, like several other hon. Members, keeps talking about the Regional Development Fund as though it will assist the regions. Is he aware that the criteria for the application of the Regional Development Fund have nothing to do with the criteria that we might apply in this country but are based on those of economic and monetary union? Those criteria, which will be decided in Brussels, may be totally different from the criteria which he and I might well apply to the regions in this country.

The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that the Commission has not drawn the map as we have done and delineated what is and what is not a development area. It does not recognise the democratic policies as we do. I accept that. I am concerned that the Government are interpreting the Regional Development Fund as a source of revenue which will relieve them of some of their responsibilities in the development areas. This is a matter of great concern to those who expected, as the hon. Gentleman did, the Regional Development Fund of the Community to be an extra source of finance, and that, although it would not be administered in quite the same way domestically, it would be of general assistance to industry.

I hope that the Chief Secretary will be a little less ambiguous than other Ministers have been on this issue at Question Time and will tell us how the Government propose to spend the allocation of money from the Regional Fund. In a sense, as a member State we are cheating on the Regional Fund because we are using it not to supplement but to replace the various forms of assistance that would otherwise be available from the United Kingdom Treasury. This is a time of great difficulty, with firms closing down and people being put out of work. The Regional Development Fund should be seen as an extra form of assistance, as its authors originally envisaged.

There was a great deal of logic in the argument that the right hon. Member for Down, South advanced. As always, he tended to take his logic to the point of the absurd. I agree that the control of spending should be at the place where the money is spent. If we had a serious approach to the European budget, today's attendance here to discuss such a matter would be lamentable. The fact is that however many tributes we may pay to the Scrutiny Committee of the House, this can be only a temporary expedient. This is no way in which to control Community expenditure. The European Parliament, with its circumscribed and limited powers to modify this or amend that, does not yet have the full authority that it should have to control the Commission's budget. It will never have that authority until it is a genuine Parliament and not a nominated Assembly.

This brings me right up to date with the question I want to put to the Chief Secretary. I am extremely concerned about the report which was issued yesterday as a result of the meeting of the Council of Ministers. Denmark had some reservations, as we had on the last occasion, about the programme for direct elections, but she has now withdrawn them. We now stand alone in not having committed ourselves as a member country to the principle of direct elections. I am not criticising the lack of commitment to the timetable, which may be too optimistic. We are not even committed to the principle to which the other member States are committed—that is, direct elections to the European Parliament. We shall go on year after year in this muddle unless we give authority to the European Parliament, authority which it cannot have unless it is directly elected by the people.

Authority to tax.

Let us take it stage by stage. The first and most important authority it must have is to scrutinise expenditure. All of us who have spoken in this debate have accepted that we are not even doing that. I take the arguments made about the lack of capacity to tax and about the summoning of that Parliament, and so on. But the Community is an evolving institution. We can take only one step at a time.

The next step on the agenda is the question of direct elections. The British Government are out of step with the rest of the member countries and have not declared their hand to this House, let alone to their partners. The attitude taken up yesterday follows on the attitude of the British Government last month on the question of representation at the energy conference. I happened to be in Strasbourg among European politicians at the Council of Europe on the day when that particular decision was taken. I found it extremely embarrassing, as a new and supposedly, post-referendum, wholehearted committed member of the Community, to have to explain away this sudden Gaullist approach to European affairs. I hope that the Chief Secretary will recognise the effect that this sort of approach is having in the Community. I find it deeply disturbing.

When seriously discussing the budget for the Commission in the future, if we are saying after the referendum that we are committed members of the Community, it is no good continuing to be half-hearted and drawing back on certain developments on a European scale.

The next step certainly is the development of the Parliament and the passing of scrutiny from the poor way in which we are able to do it here, because of our domestic preoccupations, to our colleagues who will be elected in future to the Parliament. If the Government cannot bring themselves to see that, they cannot complain that we are not supporting the spirit of the European Community and the Treaty.

9.32 p.m.

I have a good deal of sympathy with the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). However, in the context of this evening's debate he reminds me a little of the man who got lost in the Black Country and asked the way to Wolverhampton, when the answer was "Well, if I were going there, I would not start from here." We are starting from "here", in a situation in which we have to discuss these figures.

Although there may be a great deal that we need to do about the future development of the European Communities, and although it may be argued that the whole system will break down on the way to their own illogicality, for the moment we are stuck with this system, which the British people have had dumped on them, although by a free choice, and we must debate in that context.

The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that this is not a budget. That was a point made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary earlier. It is a set of estimates for spending in 1976. It is not a budget that controls expenditure. It is merely an estimate of what will flow from decisions that may be made by the Council of Ministers. For my part, I hope that those decisions are kept in the hands of the Council and do not go wandering off into a European Assembly.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) was lecturing the United Kingdom on the propriety of taking a Community attitude on this, that and the other. He should devote some of his lectures to the French Government. Throughout the history of the European Community, the French Government have always placed French national interests first, second, third, fourth and fifth on any matter that they thought remotely conflicted with what they saw as the absolutely fundamental interests of the French people. The hon. Gentleman lectures my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but I suggest that it would be much better for him to deliver some of those lectures in Paris to the Quai d'Orsay. However that is a separate matter from our main debate.

I should like to raise several matters. First, there is a curious difference of classification in the expenditure from the Agricultural Fund, which we are told is obligatory, and some of the other funds—the Social Fund, which is non-obligatory, and the Regional Fund, the status of which, according to Document R/2145/75, is uncertain as to whether it is obligatory or non-obligatory. Presumably, this affects the capacity of the Assembly or other bodies to make modifications to it. This needs to be clarified.

Document 2145 is interesting. Although it is not a budget, it sets out the pattern of expenditure that will occur within the Community finances. Hon. Members have called attention to the absurdity of the dominance of agricultural expenditure and of the system that that expenditure is designed to finance. I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South that we must constantly repeat that we are indulging in a process of education. We must educate the electorate in the fact that they have deliberately voted for a policy of dear food. They have voted for a policy under which the price of food will be forced ever higher over the transitional period—we are only just into the transitional period—and that the public will have to pay very heavily in their shopping bills for the decision they took earlier this year. Unless and until the common agricultural policy is drastically changed, which I believe to be politically almost impossible, this process will continue.

In the course of this year the Community arbitrarily and brutally prohibited imports of beef from countries that had traditionally supplied us and the Continent for many years. I believe that that arbitrary act was contrary to the spirit of agreements on international trading and must have caused great hardship and difficulty to farmers, stockbreeders and ordinary workers in countries, such as the Argentine, that have hitherto supplied us with beef.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that imports of beef from the Argentine have been dropping drastically over the years and that in fact we have taken little beef from the Argentine this year? Is he aware that I myself am giving up my farming activities on Monday next because I have not had a reasonable return on beef for the past two years?

The prohibition did not affect the Argentine only. If the Community chooses to behave in this manner and ban a certain food commodity because that suits the French farmers or the English farmers, that will attract reprisals in respect of commodities, be it cars or agricultural machinery, that we want to export. If we decide that, because of this weird agricultural system, it is not convenient any more for us to take beef or butter from a country that has been supplying us for decades, it will not be long before other people behave like that towards us.

It will then be no use our complaining that car workers or other workers employed in, say, a town in the Midlands have their jobs placed in jeopardy. If this agricultural policy is to be implemented on such a basis, we must think carefully about what the consequences will be for international trade in future. I shall not go into details about the nonsense of vast surpluses, pricing policies, and so forth.

I understood the Chief Secretary to say that there was no agreement on aid to non-associate countries. I hope that a serious effort will be made to secure a more outgoing and generous attitude on this aspect of expenditure than we have seen hitherto.

I see that there is provision for an increase of 332 persons in the bureaucracy that runs the whole arrangement. I do not know what proportion that is of the existing bureaucracy, but it seems a substantial jump. How far do the Government exercise some effective surveillance over this crowd of people running the complicated bureaucratic system?

Probably the most striking thing in the pattern of expenditure in this so-called budget is that, although four or five of the biggest industrial countries belong to the Community, the sums to be spent on industrial and energy policies and on research and investment are derisory. It may be argued that this sort of thing is better done within the individual countries, but if we are contemplating co-operative efforts, for example, in aircraft manufacturing—of which there were good examples before we became entangled in the Community—a bigger allocation of resources might be put towards things like research and industrial policy. So long as the whole system is dominated by the allocations for the agricultural subsidies, we shall not get any sensible pattern of expenditure for the other sectors. That is really the central issue.

The hon. Gentleman has listed a series of ways in which Community expenditure should be changed, and I have sympathy with many of them. But how does he think that, by their present tactics, the British Government will be able to persuade our partners to bring them about? The French, for example, have always identified the things they really wanted, have made a fuss about other things, given way on them and got the things they really wanted. If I felt that the British Government had tactical sense of that kind, I should be more satisfied with their policy. How does the hon. Gentleman think that the long list of changes he wants can be secured by following the present bull-in-the-china-shop tactics of the Government?

The French tactics have been simple. They regard the common agricultural policy as the central pillar of the system, and if that were pulled out, they would walk out of the whole arrangement. It is the fundamental political issue of the whole set-up. The policy was created to maintain a Conservative Government in power on the basis of the agricultural vote, and while that system exists, I doubt whether we shall get any reform of the policy. It may be that on this issue the whole system will eventually founder.

I am sorry if I gave the impression that I thought that there could be a rational discussion of how these things could be better ordered and set out. I was merely suggesting that, if we were lumbered with the system and had to start from where we were, we might be able to make a little sense of it as long as it existed.

9.44 p.m.

My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) bade us all take part in the debate not in the terms of trying to refight the referendum campaign. I am happy to accept that view inasmuch as I think that the relationship between the institutions of Government which we know and experience at a national level will generate, when they have to be inserted into the wider institutions of the Community, a debate the consequence of which will be just as important as the outcome of the referendum. It is strictly in that sense that I want to address myself to the documents before us.

We are indebted to the Scrutiny Committee for ensuring that the debate can take place, because I believe that the most important relationship within the Community is that between the national Parliament of this country—meaning the House of Commons—and the Ministers who will be attending the Council of Ministers.

The Chief Secretary said that he wanted to be able to go to the Council of Ministers with our voices still ringing in his ears. I am happy to concur with that request and I shall tell him how I hope he will be motivated in his tasks concerning the Community budget. I want him to be on the side of those who believe that European co-operation can most helpfully proceed within a philosophy of a Europe of nation States where there is a deliberate attempt to avoid a further tier of Government in the name of harmonisation and uniformity that would have the consequence of souring relations within the Community rather than improving them. As Chief Secretary, he must be well aware of the dangers presented by multi-tier Governments to any prudent control of public finance.

Translated into Eurospeak, I am saying that the right hon. Gentleman should behave, at least on this occasion, like a German Social Democrat. There is an almost Gladstonian streak of financial rectitude among Social Democrats, and in the Community the German Government have shown a robust attitude to levels of public expenditure. There is something slightly bizarre about those who preach the virtues of retrenchment of public expenditure at home but then preach expansion of public expenditure in the Community. For where will the money come from? Is there some imaginary store that will be drawn upon for the further financing of, for example, the Regional Development Fund? Perhaps it is hoped that we shall be able to finance the public expenditure programme by kind permission of the Germans. I do not think that that will come about, because they can figure as well as we can.

Financial controls as exercised within the Community become a haggling exercise in the Council of Ministers. Those who have warned against increasing the size of the Community budget are arguing along lines which, I believe, will be reasonably welcome to the Chief Secretary. I hope that he will defend the rôle of the Council as the largely determining factor in the size and shape of the European budget. All the evidence I have heard is that the European Assembly is in this business not to try to control and limit increases in the expenditure of the Community, but exactly the reverse. The Assembly and the Commission have one common interest—to magnify and extend the size of the Community budget.

That budget will be voted for substantially out of taxes borne by national electorates in the Community countries, and the political consequences of those taxes will be borne by hon. Members. Happy is the Strasbourg politician who can spend without the responsibility of taxation. Fraught will be the political institution which fragments responsibility for expenditure from the responsibility for revenue raising. In that context, I hope that there will be no demands at Council meetings to try to match the expensive nonsenses of the CAP with an expanded Regional Fund or Social Fund.

If one is playing a game of percentages, there is one way of reducing the percentage of the budget accounted for by agriculture. That is rapidly to expand the sums on regional policy and social policy or even to get the Community to finance a stretched version of Concorde. There would then be absolutely no difficulty in having an effective reduction in the percentage accounted for by the CAP. Of course that is by no means a joking comment, because once one allows high technology to secure a stake in European financing it will show how money can be spent.

The realities of this, however, come back to what we in this House believe to be the most effective ways of pursuing the national interest, because that is what it is all about. I do not say that it is not perfectly reasonable and honourable to seek to maximise co-operation with one's neighbours, but maximisation of that co-operation can proceed far more productively within a national institutional framework.

In the circumstances that we have today, the overwhelming concern which has been expressed over the CAP is such as to enshrine in the hearts of many hon. Members on both sides of the House the view that those who are primarily responsible for the creation of the surpluses should undertake financial responsibility for their disposal. That can be construed only in national terms. If the CAP generates substantial expenditures on account of French agriculture, it will have to be substantially the French Exchequer which must bear responsibility for meeting that situation.

I do not mind whether, for the purposes of being communautaire, one resorts to the proposition that those who create the surpluses shall have to operate under the dictum of corresponsibility for their disposal, so that instead of it being the French Exchequer maybe it will be the French farmer. It would, however be wholly inequitable for the British farmer, who has taken no part in the creation of dairy product surpluses, to find himself restrained in the current situation. I know that I shall carry with me on this point my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West. I hope he will not feel that my points are unconstructive, because I do not believe that we should be able to escape from the difficulties of an unacceptable CAP by-creating countervailing further points of Community expenditure. That would result in a new dimension of government which would make all the problems of public financing and inflation that much more difficult to handle.

What the House must address itself to—and it may be a lengthy process involving, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, a great deal of education—is how to match our national institutions to our new responsibilities. I see no indication of a will to give the European Assembly the right to tax. As the right hon. Gentleman said, that is the key governing factor over public expenditure. If we give the European Assembly the right to spend, it will exercise that right cheerfully until we have to pick up the cheques. There will then be the most bitter conflict between the national Parliaments and the continental Assembly. That, I am certain, whichever way we voted in the referendum, we would wish to avoid by taking account here and now of some of the basic realities of European co-operation.

In that sense, my message to the Chief Secretary is to take with him, when he goes to the Council of Ministers, the spirit of Gladstone, if not his hobnailed boots, and to say to his European partners that he feels that co-operation can best proceed by Ministers meeting together uncluttered with growing European bureaucracies and growing European ambitions of public spending.

9.56 p.m.

I have a comparatively trivial point to make to start off with and only one or two more after that of greater force. First, I notice that there is to be provision for an increase of 332 persons. I wonder whether the Chief Secretary could recommend to the Council of Ministers that some of those 332 persons could be used to translate these units of account into pounds sterling.

He and I, of course, have the conversion at our fingertips, and so has everybody else who has got into the new European newspeak, but there are people outside the House—it is conceivable that there are some inside—who cannot do these rapid conversions with which he and I are so familiar. Some idea of the magnitude of the expenditure would be brought home more immediately if it were in pounds sterling rather than in units of account, which is such a bland way of expressing money. There has been a complaint from the Opposition that increases in personnel are budgeted for, but that no increase in work is budgeted for, and it seems to me that this is a piece of useful informative work on which such people could be employed.

I realise that that is trivial, but I should like to enlarge on a slightly more important point and to say how pleased I am that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) is embarrassed by the fact that our representatives are insisting on being present individually at talks on energy, and how heartening it is that cracks are beginning to appear in the whole framework of the Community. How heartening it is that our position is in some instances irreconcilable with that of the rest of the Community, because there have been a few comments tonight—particularly from the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills)—about the need for constructive criticism, as though the referendum can be thrown out of the window and as though it never happened.

The points we made before the referendum will not disappear, and I imagine, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, that the Conservative Party, if there is another splendid Labour victory, will not change its philosophy overnight. The criticisms that were made at the referendum continue to be valid, and we have to ensure through these debates that the House does not lose sight of them.

We were told before the referendum—I wish that some of these debates had been held before the referendum—that the common agricultural policy was no longer a problem. Indeed, the Government put out a pamphlet to that effect. But here we are tonight dealing with the fact that a greater percentage of the Community budget than ever before is spent on the CAP. That is not what the Government said in the expensive leaflet pushed through every letter-box in the country. The situation is likely to get worse rather than better, because the policy is such an integral part of the Community structure.

We were told that the Council of Ministers was not really so powerful, and that democratic institutions were on their way, yet we have heard comments tonight on how the budget has been cut, without any reasons being advanced. This is simply because there is very little machinery open to public scrutiny so that people may know why decisions are made. One of the facts of life is that if people are given power, they will not hand it over to a democratically-elected assembly. The fact is that the Assembly in Strasbourg will not receive power. The Council of Ministers will keep it to itself, and will continue to resist any attempt to open its decisions to public scrutiny.

It could be very embarrassing to have public scrutiny. Ministers of our Government can return saying that they have had a triumph in arguing for this and that in the Council. There is no record that can lead to such statements being questioned. Everything is done behind closed doors. I am not suggesting that anybody would do that sort of thing, but it is a possibility. I do not suppose that any Minister would be unaware of the possibility or not see it as a comfort in times of stress.

Before the referendum we complained that the Regional Fund was not adequate and would not apply to this country particularly anyway. Now we are told that it will be cut. Alas, the Labour Party Euro-fanatics are not here tonight. They and Conservative Members have suggested that the Regional Fund is some sort of panacea, something to be doled out on a plate. The only reason why this country will receive money from the fund is to serve the purposes of economic and monetary union. The fund cannot be applied unless those criteria are met, so the notion that it will assist us is illusory.

The fund is convenient for those Conservative Members who are seeking public expenditure cuts. I exclude the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who is consistent in all things—he wants to cut pretty well everything. But his hon. Friends can say that although we have to cut expenditure in this country, we should be receiving more from the Community through the Regional Fund. That sort of attitude shields people from the reality that this country can progress only on its own feet, and that it cannot rest on the prop of the European Community.

There is a very interesting section in the thick and, I imagine, largely unread document R/2158/75 concerning the CAP irregularities. The hon. Member for Devon, West suggested that our system of subsidies was open to fraud and abuse, but he did not produce examples. I suggest that we do not have quite the number of abuses listed on page 67, where we read:

"In 1974, as in past years, the majority of the frauds attempted and put into effect consisted of false accounts or false supporting documents to substantiate accounting entries which at first sight appeared correct. This continuing state of affairs increasingly demonstrates the necessity for arriving at a harmonization of the national measures in the field of these audits".

That is another move towards harmonisation, which to the Community is a fetish. We are told that it will be simpler to stop the cheating and fiddling arising from the barmy system of the common agricultural policy. Consignments of food can qualify for intervention buying and then be reloaded, taken elsewhere and qualify again.

I am happy to say that the newspapers are starting to notice fraudulent activities of that sort. It is heartening to those of us who have long maintained that the CAP is open to that sort of fraudulent activity.

I do not consider that £2 million is an insignificant sum. The document refers to the frauds that have been discovered. I do not suppose that the bureaucrats in Brussels are 100 per cent. efficient. I do not suppose that even the most ardent Euro-fanatic would make that claim. It is conceivable that some frauds have escaped their eagle eyes. It may be that the £2 million is only the tip of an iceberg. It may be that something small is floating underneath, but it could be an iceberg. That stems from the notion on which the Community is built.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will take my remarks to heart. So far the Government's attitude has been heartening. Many of use felt that the Government decided that they were in favour of the Common Market because that was electorally the best way out. When we became a member of the Community, I believe that they decided to ensure that British interests were maintained. I believe that they took the view that as time progressed, experience of the Community would convince the British electorate that perhaps their decision was not the best. I believe that as time passes the contradictions, the bureacracy and the impossibility of running these absurd schemes will bring about the decentralisation for which many of us ask.

10.7 p.m.

This has been a curious debate, if only because it is in such contrast with what we would expect from a debate about a budget. We were reminded of that by the eloquent bellow of protest from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He spoke of the bewildering unfamiliarity of it all and reminded us how uneasily the concept of the Community lies with our national traditions and customs. I have no dispute with him on that score. However, as I voted "Yes" in the referendum I draw different conclusions from those of the right hon. Gentleman.

It is plain that there is the contrast to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. It has hung brooding over the whole of the debate. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman and others who have pointed to these fundamentals that in the next few minutes I shall be speaking on the assumption that somewhere in all these figures, papers and bumf there is a budget. On that assumption, I believe that something should be said about it. Perhaps we are coming down a level from the high points to which the right hon. Gentleman and others have taken us.

This is a curious debate, not only because we have even less influence on the policy which has shaped this expenditure than in any other debate but because there are no implements available as a means of financing policies which in turn determine the expenditure and which in turn determine what is called the budget. It is because of that situation that policy decisions are in an unusual state before they come before us. They are decided by the Council of Ministers, the Council having determined what it believes to be the right pattern for the future.

In a sense, all these matters present problems, but in a way they are attempts by legislators to control executive decisions on budgets. In this instance the figures are stratospherically vague, and in some cases virtually non-existent. The curious habit has been taken up of using token entries when it is not certain that a policy has been agreed. I understand that, from the point of view of those who are members of the European Parliament, the nicest thing would be for a budget to come forward with certainty. That would be better than having supplementary budgets, and miles better than the meaningless device of token entries. If it is impossible to ascertain what policies have been agreed and what expenditures will arise from them, I would hope that we go for supplementary estimates rather than token entries.

Supplementary estimates properly brought forward to this House are a valuable device, and I look forward to the time next year when public expenditure is accounted for in money terms. Supplementary estimates that come to this House in future may have a new excitement and a new relevance which in past years they have not had. If we have a choice between token entries and supplementary estimates, I would rather have the latter, although the European Assembly would like complete certainty. But certainty is one thing that does not exist.

So obscure are the figures that the amendment, which was not called, and which, therefore, the Chief Secretary found himself ready to accept, is a little misleading, and those who have appended their names to the amendment may have been misled. They talk of the agricultural sector of the Community budget as having increased to 73·6 per cent. At first glance it looks as though that is a higher percentage than the percentage in previous years, but those signatories should look closely at the matter. If they do, they will discover that in the previous year the figure was almost 73 per cent. If we add all the odds and ends in considering supplementary budgets, those figures turn out to be most misleading. It may be that the percentage in the agricultural sector will be higher this year, but the figure last year was higher than the figure in the amendment indicates. We are dealing with gaseous clouds rather than statistics and this makes a sensible and well-focused critique that much more vague.

However, there is something approaching fact in all this information. I am glad to say that one fact is the desire of the Chief Secretary and of the Government to pursue financial stringency at present. The Chief Secretary recently went to the Council of Ministers to make the decision that led to that Council's draft budget, and the Ministers had this matter very much in mind. I notice that at the end of that meeting—I do not know whether it was an all-night session—the right hon. Gentleman was reported in one newspaper as having been ambivalent. I do not know whether he was ambivalent because he had certain matters to proclaim because he had succeeded in securing an arrangement of the figures which would lead Britain not to have to make too substantial a net contribution—indeed, possibly a zero figure—to the rest of the Community. That was something to crow about.

When I read the item in the newspaper a little further, I discovered that what the right hon. Gentleman was ambivalent about was his problem concerning his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. One of the sources of the enormous agricultural budget is the monetary compensation amounts that are paid to this country, but in the light of our poor exchange rate and our price structure a smaller amount in money terms is paid to us. In other words, less money comes to us from Brussels. There is thus less insulation of the British system from the European realities of our weak currency and our high inflation rate. This certainly applies to the costs of farm production. The one cost is traded off against the other, with less money flowing in. Consequently the realities would be more visible in regard to a more effective source of finance for the agricultural expansion that we in this country so desperately need.

The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) revealed that this had driven him to shut up shop on Monday. This is the dilemma for the Chief Secretary and the Government. Desirable as more finance for agricultural expansion would be, and desirable as it is that the costs of efficient production should be reflected in prices, this is not at all in line with the Government's policy. The Government are seeking yet again—they have been seeking it all along, but there has been a little more effort in the past few days—to suppress increases, which means prolonging price inflation. That is what is preoccupying them at the moment. That is very much the job of the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. Therein lies one of the main difficulties and one of the reasons why the Chief Secretary was ambivalent after his session with the Council of Ministers.

The problem remains that unless substantial inroads can be made into the enormous agricultural sector of the budget the Chief Secretary will be forced, in the light of the need for financial stringency, to look for cuts in other areas—cuts which will be doubly vicious. This is precisely what is happening and this is why members of the Assembly, when they saw the budget and what had happened, spoke out in high protest at the way the agricultural sector had been preserved from the chopper which had instead fallen on the regional, social, energy and technology sectors.

The Chief Secretary assures us, in the Treasury's Explanatory Memorandum, that there has been no major reduction in the Regional Development Fund and that the Council's decision to reduce the payment appropriations merely reflects the speed at which payments will be made and does not reflect any change of policy. That is all very well but it does not reassure me very much. It is good news, perhaps, for those who regard the Regional Development Fund as undesirable. In the light of what I said about the failure to cut into the agricultural sector and in the light of the reasons for this, it is a pity that these other sectors have had to be sacrificed. More than that, it is absurd. I understand that in the energy sector the economies involve keeping a lot of men in post but not giving them any money with which to do anything—a Dante-like existence which they must regret and which appears to be the product of this form of budgeting and this approach to the problem.

There is another way we must certainly look at by which the agricultural slice of the budget could be contained and, in a sense, is being and has been contained. That is in seeking all the while to give greater emphasis to the Guidance Section concerned with modernising the structure of European agriculture and giving correspondingly less to the Guarantee Section. Most people would agree that that is a desirable objective. I expect that the Chief Secretary would agree. Those are the general points I make on the so-called budget.

I turn now to the way these funds, whether or not they are cut, are treated by Whitehall and the Government. I know that the Chief Secretary has to worry about public expenditure and that he therefore seizes on any revenues he can get from Brussels or elsewhere to help him contain the apparently uncontainable totals with which he is confronted. We have had debates on this before.

The other day the Prime Minister was questioned on the issue of—I hate to use the revolting word—additionality. This concerns whether the funds from Brussels are to be additional to expenditure that would otherwise take place in the regions or for social purposes or whatever else. The Prime Minister produced a slightly different answer—characteristically ambiguously different—from the straightforward cry of the Chief Secretary that he wanted those funds and that they would replace anything that had been spent.

The Prime Minister said:

"When European funds are used for projects which would otherwise have been supported by the Exchequer, funds are freed to enable us to support regional development in other ways; for example, through the advance factory programme recently announced by my right hon Friend the Secretary of State. Had it not been for the European contribution it would have been much more difficult for us to devote money to a project such as that."—[Official Report, 28th October 1975; Vol. 898, c. 1291.]

Was the Prime Minister in that passage moving away from the stricter, properly puritanical view of the Chief Secretary in saying that these funds will be taken in such a way as to release automatically other funds for other projects which might otherwise not have been embarked upon? What is the policy of interposition by Whitehall in the handling of these funds?

As we continue with these debates on the budget and as the Government, of whichever party, settle into the rôle of being a member Government and handling these problems, we shall encounter more difficulties over the way in which European Community funds should be handled and the way in which Whitehall thinks they should be handled. Before long we shall need to re-examine the whole system, have it out in the open and be clear whether we are using this as a device—as the Chief Secretary understandably would want to do, and so save himself other public expenditure problems —or whether we are concerned to see that these funds are part of the binding and linking process to create a more effective European entity.

Hon. Members have said that the bureaucracy is growing. They were right to point to that fact. I should have been staggered if its numbers had not grown. However, the numbers involved in items such as 32 more interpreters are peanuts compared with the gigantic bureaucracy with which we have landed ourselves in Whitehall partly as a result—other hon. Members would say partly as a result of the failure—of traditional methods of control and restraint which have been practised in this country. To compare the two is to compare like with unlike since we are referring to 1,000 versus 40,000. There is no comparison.

This debate has been surprisingly interesting, in spite of the fact that it was referred to as a charade. For those who accept the rules of the situation, there is much common ground. We agree that the common agricultural policy must be adapted and that there are large areas of inefficient agriculture in the European Economic Community. All who accept the EEC must agree that as there is no longer a cheap world food era or a cheap source of supply, prices must reflect production costs. If they do not, food supplies will be threatened. That is the issue around which the referendum revolved. I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South that the debate will continue, although it may become more settled. This debate has been a valuable part of that continuing process.

10.25 p.m.

With the leave of the House, in the time available to me I shall try to reply to all that has been said.

This debate has been a curious one. I noted a little ambivalence in the remarks of the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. At the outset, I wondered about the speech of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Shaw), who expressed some worry about the cuts which had been made in the budget, and I thought that I saw the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) positively wince. However, it has been an interesting debate, and we have even had a course of education from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). It was a fascinating discourse, as his speeches always are. It did not have a great deal to do with this budget. Nevertheless it was a fascinating discussion about the kind of financial system that we might like. But, of course, in the motion we are taking note of a draft European budget, and much as I should like to develop the right hon. Gentleman's theme it has nothing really to do with the matter that we are debating.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) asked about the Government's policy on direct elections. I am happy to announce a new Government policy on almost any subject for which I am responsible, which means virtually the lot. But we are debating a motion to take note of the European Community draft budget, and this perhaps is not an altogether appropriate time to make such an announcement.

I have had a great deal of advice in the debate. That is not unusual in my experience, and I grow accustomed to it. But this is the first time that I have been asked, as I was by the hon. Member for Oswestry, to behave like a German Social Democrat and Gladstone. I am always happy to take the hon. Gentleman's advice because I have a great deal of regard for him. But I thought that I had clarified the situation for his benefit. The hon. Gentleman is a very discerning Member. I may tell him that when the Germans acted as they did in the budget debates in the Council of Ministers, I said that simply to cut estimates did nothing about the actual expenditure if the policy was left the same. In that sense, to behave like the German Social Democrats in the Budget Council achieves nothing. I want to achieve something, and I shall say a word or two about the agricultural policy in a moment.

My right hon. Friend is saying, in effect, that the Treasury will have no control over these matters, because all the expenditure will be determined by the Minister of Agriculture and the other Ministers.

I am sorry if I did not elaborate it sufficiently. But I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that every Minister in this Government, when taking decisions about financial matters, will have the odd word in his ear from the Chief Secretary. When a Minister in another Department discusses policy matters which are to go before the Council of Ministers of Agriculture or before any other Council, the Government and the Chief Secretary are concerned and involved.

Another matter touched on in the debate was the way that national Parliaments and Ministers are involved in these matters. As the system now applies, it is the spending Ministers who are responsible, through the Government, to this House. I think that that is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley).

Another matter raised concerned the Social Fund. I could not understand the hon. Member for Scarborough when he asked why we had cut 60 mua off the Social Fund. I pointed out the way that the Council of Ministers works. Although the Commission put in that figure, there was no policy on that issue and, rightly in my view, the Council of Ministers decided to delete it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley asked about the classifications of the Social Fund and the Regional Fund. The Social Fund is classified as non-obligatory, which means that within the maximum rate the Assembly can increase it. The Regional Fund is in a state of limbo. The Council of Ministers says that it should be classified as obligatory, whereas the Assembly is concerned to have it classified as non-obligatory. At the moment it is left in that state.

I turn to the questions raised about the Regional Fund. The political commitment to the size of the fund stands. In the Community budget we are talking about an estimate arising out of that commitment that may or may not be spent.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles asked for an assurance that the Government would put the fullest possible impetus behind the Regional Fund. The answer is that they will. We want the maximum number of applications to be made so that we can take the maximum possible advantage of the fund. The hon. Gentleman also managed to raise the matter of devolution. I hope he will forgive me if I do not take up too much time on that question. However, I have noted the point he made that we should examine the possibility of a more speedy use of the Regional Fund by allowing the Scottish Office to become involved. The Scottish Office is involved in the processing of applications, and I shall certainly ensure that this point is brought to its attention.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles and the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) mentioned the problem of additionality. The hon. Member for Guildford asked whether the Prime Minister's remarks represented Government policy. I am happy to tell him that they did. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that I was concerned that there should be a strict control over public expenditure. He cited the Prime Minister as saying that were it not for the Regional Fund certain other regional expenditures could not be made. That is absolutely correct. Were it not for the Regional Fund there would be other regional expenditure which could not be spent without increasing public expenditure to a degree with which the hon. Member for Guildford and other hon. Members would disagree. I hope that that is reasonably clear. I am sorry if hon. Gentlemen do not like the way the system works and would like to spend more, but that is how it works.

We do not like the Government's pronouncements on this matter because, although phrases are used such as "money that would otherwise not be spent", we are unable to control what otherwise might be spent. We do not know. This is a matter of judgment, for the Government. There is no way in which we can examine the arithmetic.

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly fair. I appreciate the problem. However much we receive from the Regional Fund, to that extent we shall be able to spend more and to that extent it is additional to what we should otherwise have spent on regional expenditure.

A number of points were raised about the supplementary budget. The hon. Member for Scarborough was concerned that the budget for the common agricultural policy was not accurate enough. Given the kind of common agricultural policy that we have, how can we have estimates about the amount of expenditure for next week, let alone 1976, that are accurate? We are dependent upon the weather in every part of the world because it affects harvests all round the world. In this system it is simply not possible to have an accurate assessment of expenditure.

The right hon. Gentleman is merely repeating my words.

In that case, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with what I am saying. I thought he was complaining about the inaccuracy of the assessment in the budget. I was trying to explain why there are inevitably bound to be inaccuracies, because they are estimates. With the way that the system works, by the nature of things it is impossible for them to be accurate. That is why from time to time there must be supplementary budgets.

I am glad that those who referred to this thought that the supplementary budget system, provided that the supplementary budget relates to this type of system rather than loose control, was a better way to deal with the matter. I know that the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) agreed with that. I am obliged to him for offering me his congratulations on the calibre of the briefs that I have been letting Members of the Assembly have. As he was so kind about it, I shall try to do even better in the future.

The one subject discussed by virtually every hon. Member during the debate was the common agricultural policy. It was discussed particularly by my hon. Friends the Members for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett), Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) and Heeley. I listened with fascination to the example given to us by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich of the ships' chandlers in his constituency. My heart bled for his constituent. It sounded an appalling problem.

However, we must understand the way that the agricultural expenditure works in relation to this budget. It relates to what I have been saying about why it is not possible to have the figures accurate in the budget statement because the budget is an estimate of what might happen in 1976. Many of my hon. Friends made very powerful speeches. I do not necessarily go along with every dot and comma of their broader generalisations, but I go along with the demands that they were seeking to make in their amendment—that the Government should continue their efforts to obtain radical changes in the CAP.

Perhaps I may say to the hon. Member for Guildford that, as my hon. Friends are well aware, when I originally said that I was prepared to recommend to the House that we should accept the amendment I did not know that Mr. Speaker was not prepared to allow it to be accepted. It would not have made the slightest difference to me if it had been selected, because I was prepared to agree that it should be accepted.

The main point I made at the outset and make again now is that the agricultural policy cannot be changed at Budget Council meetings. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Oswestry nodding his head, because that is precisely why I was not able to go along and be a good German Social Democrat in the Budget Council meeting. I thought that it would achieve nothing at all but simply lop off figures that had no particular meaning, because, if nothing else were done in terms of the CAP, all that that would have meant is that next year, with the intervention system working in the way it does, there would need to be supplementary estimates.

It is the policy that needs changing. It is because of that policy and because the Government are in favour of radical changes in the CAP—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is trying very hard to see that we get those changes—that I recommended acceptance of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends. In that sense, all that I ask of the House tonight is a simple task—to take note of the European budget.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of the draft Community Budget for 1976 and Commission Documents Nos. R/2145-75, R/2158/75 and R/2228/75.

Adjournment

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

Motorway Planning Procedure

10.40 p.m.

I am glad to have the opportunity of raising the matter of the public participation procedure with regard to motorway and major trunk route planning. My researches reveal that this is the first time that the House has had the opportunity of discussing these procedures, which have been in force since the autumn of 1973.

I shall immediately declare a constituency interest, which I know the Minister fully appreciates. Pudsey lies, proudly I would say, between the great conurbations of Leeds and Bradford, and it is currently affected by three major motorway or trunk route developments. The first is the Airedale motorway, which was planned in advance of the consultation procedure. This motorway would, if accepted, lead to depositing traffic on the A657 trunk route which runs north-west to south-east through my constituency. The second is the Shipley-Leeds link road, for which the consultation procedure has now finished and which would augment the A657 route. The third and probably the most significant is for the Kirkhamgate-Dishforth motorway, whose proposed western routes would bisect my constituency from north to south.

It is no exaggeration to say that, if all these routes were implemented, my constituents would be crucified by concrete from top to bottom. In addition, the remaining green belt between the cities of Leeds and Bradford would be destroyed, and also the 800-year old village of Calverley, pleasantly situated on the wooded slopes of Airedale, would be adjacent to a major motorway-trunk route interchange and would be overshadowed by a 100-foot-high motorway viaduct.

These are somewhat emotional terms. I do not think that there is any more emotive issue today than the location of motorways and major trunk routes. This is inevitable, because the population generarlly has a very enhanced appreciation of its environment, and we all wish that to be so. To no section of the population does this apply more strongly than people living in densely populated areas or urban development, such as the industrial parts of West Yorkshire. Secondly, it is very laudable that the public require greater consultation and that there is a thirst for more involvement in the making of decisions so obviously affecting the areas in which they live.

The present procedure for consultation was laid down after due consultation by the Department of the Environment in Roads Circular No. 30/73, issued by the Department in September 1973. It provides for a consultation statement that will

"(i) provide basic information about the traffic needs the scheme is intended to satisfy;

(ii) provide descriptions of the alternative routes or methods of improvement to be considered;

(iii) assess the effectiveness of the alternatives in meeting these needs;

(iv) state estimated costs;

(v) give such engineering details as the approximate location of junctions and (if available) types of junctions…

(vi) indicate where roads are likely to be in cutting or on embankment; and

(vii) cover any other factors on which there is material relevant to the choice (this may include information about the consequence of the alternatives on properties in terms of the approximate number seriously affected and the approximate number which might have to be demolished; information about the broad environmental effects of the alternatives…".

These are some of the issues that have to be covered in a consultation statement. The responsibility for carrying through the consultation procedure rests with the road construction units of the Department of the Environment located in the regions concerned. The prime purpose of the RCUs is to build roads. They are primarily staffed with designers, civil engineers and contractors, who prepare and let contracts and oversee them. Very good they are at that. All of us will wish to pay tribute to the constructions they have carried out, particularly the M62. Although engineering skill may be common to these construction units throughout the country, I suggest that consultation procedures vary and that the quality of these procedures varies.

I shall give an example. I have a document, prepared by the North-West Road Construction Unit, which deals with the Calder Valley motorway—M6–M61. This document is very elaborate and deals with a motorway link of 10 to 13 miles at an approximate cost of £30 million to £40 million. It deals fully with the technical case. It contains a map of the routes and shows that detail clearly. It also lists in great detail the various factors involved in the roads including—this is important—the environmental considerations that would be at risk in the selection of any of the alternative routes proposed. It is a large and substantial document.

At the same time, the North-East Road Construction Unit produced a consultation document for the Pudsey-Dish-forth motorway, running 38 to 40 miles and involving a cost of £90 million to £96 million. It is an extremely modest document, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would agree with that. It deals only slightly with the case and also shows a fairly simple artist's impression of the area in which the routes or corridors might lie. It does not deal in detail with environmental considerations on each of the routes proposed, and when we come to the technical data, such as traffic information, it lamely states that a traffic survey was conducted in autumn 1973, but that as the analysis of traffic data is a lengthy procedure, full details are not available at present.

In the matter of consultation, where we require to have facts, particularly about traffic and environment, the standards of consultation between these two construction units clearly vary. In my view, the document dealing with the Kirkhamgate-Dishforth link is hardly appropriate for the purposes for which it has been designed. My first point is that the standards of consultation documents vary, whereas the needs of the population do not, as the needs of areas do not. We should have the same standard of services generally in consultation documents.

Secondly, all areas where planning procedures are involved should have the full facts in which a planned proposal is set, and those facts should be disclosed in the consultation document. Obviously, there are simple facts, such as traffic data, which might be expressed instead of total units by category of vehicle, heavy vehicles versus cars or light vehicles, or long distance vehicles versus commuter traffic, so that members of the public could participate more fully. More important facts that should be disclosed are the broad road plans for the region.

My contention is that the other consultation exercises that are proceeding do not really link up with the motorway proposal. They do not illustrate the traffic route proposals joining the Airedale route to Leeds, although it is an integral part of the same environment. Nor, indeed, do the local highway authority proposals go into this document to demonstrate the roads that would be required to provide the radial links into Bradford, for example, on completion of the Airedale motorway, if that is selected. We are in danger of having piecemeal consultation, and my area, which is not unique, does not have a chance of seeing the, full road developments being prepared, which may come forward piece by piece.

The public must not be fobbed off by a bit-by-bit arrangement which may be convenient to the Ministry, but whose implementation must be seen in total before a considered and a knowledgeable view can be taken by those whose participation is involved. In my judgment, the confused public will get angry and there are regrettable signs that it is getting angry. The Airedale inquiry has, most regrettably, been disrupted by tactics on behalf of certain objectors. I am sure that I speak for all my right hon. and hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox), when I say that this kind of behaviour at a ministerial inquiry can only damage the cause of those who seek intelligent discussion of these problems. It certainly does not advance the worthy cause of public participation.

But confusion is evident. It is not helped by the method of consultation, because that method is a sample method. The Department of the Environment seeks a sample of the opinion of the population affected and therefore the scale of the print order, the consultation exercise and the period over which it takes place are relatively slender and slight, although I am grateful that the Minister has kindly agreed that, in the case of these two projects, there should be an extended period of consultation and more questionnaires available. But a sample study would surely be cheaper if more orthodox market research procedures were used and would cost considerably less than the £40,000 expended so far on the Pudsey-Dishforth consultation.

The consultation document is headed "We need your views." The local population must be excused for believing that everyone has the right to be consulted and that participation should be full rather than selective. The public has been concerned about inaccuracies and distortions in the maps and about local amenities being omitted, and so on. For example, agricultural land is shown only in certain grades. The major drawback concerns the precise locations.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the quality of agricultural land is an important factor? Also important are the quality of village communities and the landscapes surrounding them. It is insensitive of the Ministry to produce a consultation document showing a corridor through which the motorway could pass going directly through a village. That is bound to engender a lot of feeling within that community against the motorway being planned in any way.

I am grateful. Clearly, in areas like Lower Wharfedale and Nidderdale, areas of outstanding beauty, the problem of rural environment is as great as my problem of urban environment.

The road construction unit is unwilling to disclose the full facts before the inquiry, as many correspondents have found, Thus, at the inquiry stage it has a substantial advantage, because the representatives of the Department are professionally skilled and better organised than intelligent other objectors.

Can the needs case really be fully argued? There is some doubt of that, although the Minister has been helpful on the matter in a recent letter to me. The problem of confusion is reflected in decisions taken recently by the two major authorities involved in my area. The Leeds Metropolitan City Council, after full discussion of the motorway proposals, has felt that no decision could be taken on a recommended route as the needs case was inadequate, whereas the West Yorkshire Council Council, the highway authority, after full discussion on the same facts, supported the west of Leeds route.

I believe that the consultation procedure deserves re-examination by the Department and I want to make the following helpful suggestions. First, I believe that a RCU should not be charged with the consultation exercise. It is not its real job, and it would prefer to get on with the job of construction. In a debate yesterday in another place on the Community Land Bill there was reference to the importance of local inquiries in matters affecting local authorities and land. I suggest that the subject of inquiries is so important mat perhaps the Department could have specialist units to handle the consultation proceedings and inquiries.

A full picture of road planning is urgently required to enable the public to participate sensibly in consultation procedures. Again, the facts must be of a uniformly high standard. After all, there is massive public money at stake in the motorway proposals and this means that rational rather than emotional arguments must prevail. This cannot be so unless the full picture is disclosed, together with the full facts.

Alternative routes must be genuine, but if the RCU has a preference, it should disclose it at the consultation stage and let those involved have the opportunity to argue convincingly against it, if they wish. The highway authority should disclose the consequential plans for routes and traffic management at the same time as the consultation for motorways and major roads.

We all want more open government and our constituents demand it. I invite the Minister, before pronouncing on the Pudsey-Dishforth motorway proposal, to come to my constituency and see the cause of our anxiety. My constituents, who stand to lose so much from this proposal, ask for full and frank discussion of all the relevant facts and fuller and fairer consideration of their environmental consequences. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will advise the Secretary of State that this is what my constituents deserve and that until that happens, the motorway proposal and the planning procedures should be shelved.

10.55 p.m.

I have listened with interest to the points raised by the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw). Although we have not previously had a debate on this subject, I frequently have discussions about the problem with hon. Members. Hon. Members may find it helpful if I outline the background to the present public consultation procedure as it has not been discussed in the House for a long time.

Public participation in road planning is a relatively recent development and has generated a lot of interest. It was introduced by the Department under the previous administration two years ago, following increasing pressure from the public for earlier involvement in the planning of road schemes.

The public have had the opportunity for many years to comment on and object to the final line of a road when this has been developed and published as a firm proposal. This can, and often does, lead to a public inquiry at which the whole subject can be fully aired. Public participation or, as I prefer to call it, public consultation, in no way detracts from people's rights at this stage. It provides an additional earlier opportunity for the views of those concerned to be taken into account.

Consultation is undertaken at a relatively early stage in the development of a road scheme when a decision has to be taken on a preferred alignment to be worked up in more detail. This could be two or three years before the public inquiry. Once a number of feasible alternative routes for the road have been identified, we undertake a consultation exercise in the area concerned and seek the views of local councils, the public and interested local and national organisations on the different alignments. This is supported by the widest possible publicity, public exhibitions and the distribution of explanatory literature throughout the area. All the comments received are then taken into account before any decision is taken on which route should be preferred.

This new procedure has been generally welcomed as providing a forum for debate on the issues involved. The Department has now undertaken about 60 of these exercises and Ministers have announced decisions on 18 of them. I hope that our techniques have developed with experience and will go on developing. We make considerable efforts to describe the options as clearly and simply as possible, but it is not easy to draw the right balance between going into too much detail, which can be confusing to many people, and pruning down the information too severely in the interests of clarity.

We are always learning from our experience and we welcome any comments and suggestions from the public on how we could improve our procedures. We are undertaking some small-scale research into the effectiveness of our consultation methods and, though it is still too early to have reached any conclusions, the fact that we are carrying out these studies is a clear indication of our wish to clarify and improve our existing procedures.

A consultation exercise on a road scheme should not be regarded as a referendum. The comments of the public and their representatives are of course very important in deciding what we should do, but we must bear in mind other important factors, particularly environmental considerations, engineering points and, in the present economic climate, the general cost-effectiveness of the scheme.

We also hope to obtain the highest possible response from the area, though on some occasions the number of comments received has been disappointingly low. We try to tell people about the exercise by advertisements and through the medium of the local Press, but mainly through the distribution of our explanatory booklets. These are usually available at our public exhibitions as well as at council offices and such places as libraries and post offices.

The booklets contain questionnaires on which people can make their comments on the scheme. In some cases where the road scheme affects relatively few people fairly directly—such as in the case of a bypass of a small town—we are now delivering copies of the booklet to every house in the area. This ensures that everyone is fully aware of the exercise and of the issues involved, and it appears to generate a greater interest. But obviously we cannot afford to do that when the number of people involved is very high.

It is important to emphasise, however, that consultation is very much a two-way process; that it is a medium for informing people of the possible route alignments being considered as much as seeking their views on them. The previous lack of information on the progress of a scheme until the relatively late public inquiry stage was a cause of widespread public concern and was one of the main factors leading to the introduction of public consultation.

Perhaps I may deal briefly with the arguments about random sampling, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Pudsey. Though I accept that there are some attractions in the suggestion made by the Hon. Member that we should change our system to one based on random sampling, I do not consider that on road planning it could by itself be as effective as in the marketing field.

There are a number of factors that incline me to this view. First, it cannot be an acceptable substitite for the present system for informing people in the area affected by the Department's proposals. Secondly, it does not give the same opportunity for the many people with views on the road scheme to put them forward. Finally, it cannot cater for the very important contribution that local amenity groups currently play in the decision process. Moreover, there is some evidence that the consultation exercises produce an adequate reflection of the views of the community. But I am always open to new ideas on public consultation and we shall bear the hon. Member's views in mind—though the idea would add to the costs we already incur, and these are already fairly high, in carrying out these exercises.

I turn now to the national view of schemes and the suggestion that we do not give a complete picture of all consultation exercises relating to motorway and trunk road improvements in his area. The improvements we are proposing to make on a national scale are given in publications such as "Roads in England". This publication gives the strategy that has been examined by each new Transport Minister and each new Government. I am sure that further information about individual schemes can be obtained from either the regions, or from the Department.

The three schemes involving my constituency are interlinked, yet there are three separate consultation proposals. It seems sensible to me to bring them together where that can be done.

It would be ideal to have everyone together for a fortnight's seminar and to give them all the details. I shall attempt to deal with the response we get. We are trying to get all the non-vocal people to express their points of view. Those who are able to express their objections already take full advantage of the opportunity to do so.

The cost of these exercises has inevitably come under criticism, but we cannot have democracy on the cheap. Overall, I think that the money is well spent in producing more acceptable solutions, and in any case it represents only a very small proportion of the overall cost of a scheme.

The costs of course vary with the size and complexity of the scheme, but, as a rough guide, one concerned with a major link road some tens of miles long could cost between £20,000 and £40,000, whilst one for a small bypass could cost £1,000–£2,000. These costs cover mounting the exhibition, the printing and distribution of booklets, hiring of halls, publicity and the cost of the staff involved. One of the very great problems is that we have a highly trained staff which has to be able to look after the public and explain matters. It is quite costly and other work has to be interrupted to enable the staff to do this.

I attended an exhibition in Berwick-upon-Tweed on the town bypass earlier this year. I was very impressed with the work put into producing an effective exercise and exhibition and I know from many remarks made to me that the people of Berwick appreciated the efforts. They had never before been consulted like this by officialdom, and it was very nice that people were tentatively taking steps towards making decisions about their own community.

The hon. Member for Pudsey is, of course, particularly concerned with two current consultation exercises that affect his constituency. These are the proposed route between Yorkshire and the North-East, known as Kirkhamgate-Dishforth and the Shipley-Thackley-Leeds link. Inevitably, each has generated a lot of interest, and the Department agreed to give more time—until the end of September—for consideration of the complex issues involved in the Kirkhamgate-Dishforth route.

The consultation period extended over four months. I hope that this extra period meets the wishes of those concerned in the area. While we had an encouraging public response, with over 7,500 completed questionnaires and a considerable volume of correspondence, this final figure should be compared with the total of 60,000 booklets apparently taken up by the public out of the 80,000 booklets printed by the Department.

We are very aware of the clash between the conflicting requirements of giving people sufficient time to comment on proposals and the need to arrive at an early decision in order to minimise the planning blight and uncertainty that these exercises cause, and my Department is now actively assessing the comments received. With a complicated scheme of this nature, that will inevitably take some time.

One of the complications of the Kirkhamgate-Dishforth exercise related to the number of consultative booklets available in the area and their distribution in the area. The Department had originally printed 50,000, which on past experience we expected to be sufficient. The demand for them was very great, and we were not able to meet some requests for bulk supplies of the booklet. I had correspondence with the hon. Member about that. We arranged for extra booklets. The Department printed an additional 30,000 booklets, thus making a total of 80,000 available to the public. There is no reason why our questionnaire could not be completed by more than one person, or a particular viewpoint be put forward.

I accept that there has been some criticism of this consultative document. It is always very difficult to strike the right balance between providing enough information to enable the public to form a view, and keeping the document sufficiently concise to be interesting and clear. Inevitably, there will be too little detail for some and too much for others. This is a very difficult point, but I shall look at the two booklets mentioned by the hon. Member and see why there is a difference.

These exercises cause a lot of work for the Department and inevitably cause some delay in the preparation of a road scheme. They can also cause blight and uncertainty in the area concerned, and this sometimes causes very great anxiety and raises a number of controversial issues. But against that there are the important advantages of making the public aware of the Department's thoughts on a road proposal at an early stage and providing an opportunity to influence the outcome. We are always trying to improve our procedures, and though I am fully aware that they are not yet perfect, I hope that on balance our consultation exercises are recognised as providing an effective and democratic addition to the process of road design.

I hope that I have managed to explain that we are very concerned about getting the message over to people. First, we want them to know early that there is a road proposed in the area. We hope that we shall continue to improve our procedures—perhaps even further as a result of the hon. Member raising the matter in the House—and in that way make people a little more satisfied.

It is never possible to please everyone. Most people want the road to be over the hill from them, with a spur road leading to them. But we need roads and I hope that we can build them with as little inconvenience—

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 ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Volume 899: debated on Thursday 6 November 1975

House Of Commons

Prayers

Oral Answers To Questions

National Finance

Growth

Macro-Economic Model

Income Tax

European Community

Tax Receipts

Expenditure

Borrowing Requirement

Income Tax Allowance (Female Pensioners)

Republic Of Ireland

Industrial Strategy (Chequers Meeting)

Belize

Business Of The House

Orders Of The Day

Trade Union And Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill

New Clause B

Freedom Of The Press

European Community (Budget)

Adjournment

Motorway Planning Procedure