APPLICATION OF NET INCOME FROM CHARGES

HC Deb 18 October 1972 vol 843 cc277-95

One half of the income accruing to a museum or gallery from charges authorised by this Act shall be retained by such a museum or gallery for its benefit—[Mr. Strauss.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss (Vauxhall)

I formally move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Guy Barnett (Greenwich)

It is about two years since the Bill's proposal was first made. Since then it has been the subject of attacks and criticism from trustees, museum staffs, educationists, connoisseurs, the Press and the public generally. One of the reasons the Bill has been subject to such a degree of attack to nothing more than a tax on those who wish to visit museums and galleries.

It is clear from the Government's statements and the White Paper that such moneys which are gathered through charges at the entrances of museums will be an appropriation in aid of the Vote given to those institutions. The Opposition have consistently argued that that must involve a tax on those who wish to visit our museums. It is commonly understood that the Government's proposal will amount to a system whereby charges which are levied on those who enter museums will benefit the museums. That is not the case. It must be made clear at the outset that the is not so and that when the charges are administered the consequence will be that the Vote in aid will be cut.

Another feature of the proposals is that those museum staffs who are involved will become collectors of a tax. That is why many members of museum staffs—I was one myself—are bitterly opposed to the proposals. I emphasise that in no sense are the Opposition putting forward the new Clause because we are conceding the principle of the Bill. The Government seem determined, despite the delays, to push the Bill through, and we feel that it is sensible to move a Clause which will go some way to improve the Bill and to make it slightly more acceptable in the eyes of the public, especially those who care deeply about our museums and galleries.

What possible objection can there be to our proposal? First and not least, it will inject some sense into the extraordinary non sequitur which appears at the beginning of Cmnd. 4676, which says at paragraph 1(a): A scheme of entrance charges for the national museums and galleries … In consequence the Government are able to provide additional resources for the conservation and display of their collections. There seems to be no logical connection between the first statement and the second. It is like a headmaster saying to a class of boys "If you disobey me, I will punish you." That may be a reflection on the psychology of the headmaster, but there is no logical connection in that statement. The statement in the White Paper has gone a long way to mislead the general public into believing that these charges will benefit the museums.

The object of the new Clause is to ensure that the charges benefit the museums and institutions which have to make them at the behest of the Government. It has been argued on several occasions, by both the Under-Secretary of State and the Paymaster-General, that to adopt the new Clause would be tantamount to saying "Unto him that hath shall be given." We all know that some galleries and museums are more popular than others. It is argued that they would get more visitors and that their income would be greater, that therefore the money at the disposal of the trustees would be greater and they would have an unfair advantage over institutions that regularly receive fewer visitors.

Judging by the number of occasions when that argument has been used, I can only assume that it is a popular argument with the Government. However, it is a hypocritical argument from the Government to suggest that some kind of equality or equity should exist between institutions. That argument is aduced by the Government which introduced the last Budget. It is odd that a proposal of that kind seems to carry a certain amount of support, judging by other Amendments suggested by Goverment back benchers.

It is in line with some of the more reputable principles of Conservative philosophy that institutions, including public ones, should be given some measure of autonomy, responsibility independent of Treasury control. That represents a small concession but establishes an important principle, which is already successfully practised in financial transactions between central and local government. Local government is given a measure of financial independence from central government and the rate support grant is used as a means of ironing out serious inequalities of income and expenditure among authorities.

4.15 p.m.

It has been said that the new Clause might lead to an unfortunate new precedent—to the hypothecation of revenue to a particular institution, which has never been allowed by the Treasury in any other circumstance, and, therefore, that that precedent should not be followed. Presumably, it is argued that the Treasury has good reasons for preventing developments of that kind, but on previous occasions the Treasury has made such a concession.

I have before me correspondence which took place in 1920 to 1921 between the National Gallery and the Treasury, the Department then responsible. These documents show that proceeds from admission charges on two days a week were allotted to the galleries for purchasing purposes between April, 1921, and April, 1924. The Treasury originally suggested that there should be three extra paying days. I quote from a letter written from the Treasury on 7th February, 1921 The writer, on behalf of the Lords Commissioners, said: My Lords are unable in present financial conditions to sanction increased expenditure from Public Funds (including appropriations in aid from paying days on the current basis) upon the purchase of pictures etc. for the National Galleries in the financial year 1921–1922. They are prepared to assent to the allocation for this purpose of any increased receipts derived from imposing entrance fees on such additional days (or increased rates of entrance) as the Trustees of the Galleries in question may in their discretion (subject to Their Lordships consent) determine. That establishes beyond doubt that the Treasury has set such a precedent. Therefore, there seems no reason why that precedent should not be followed on this occasion. It seems that it is administratively possible and there is no reason why it should not be done. If it is intelligently administered, there would be no financial injustice between one institution and another.

Thirdly, it seems that considerable advantages could flow from the adoption of the Clause. The first, which I have mentioned already, is that it would give institutions a measure of independence such as the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery already enjoy in the sale of postcards and other items, and the retention of the income which they enjoy as a consequence of that. Secondly, it would provide an incentive to trustees and the staffs of such institutions, and encourage them to increase attendance, surely a principle which will appeal to Conservative Members. Thirdly, it would be an important message to the public that by visiting a museum and paying a charge they were at the same time supporting the institution in question, which no one can now say as the Bill is drafted.

I do not think that any difficulty need arise as a consequence of the issue of season tickets which grant entry to all institutions. The proceeds of that could be distributed on a basis to be agreed between the institutions concerned.

Last, and very important in view of some of the incredible estimates we have had, it would have the effect of encouraging trustees of the institutions to keep down the costs of collection of the money instead of incurring the absurd costs that have already been mentioned. Perhaps one of the most absurd, which will no doubt be mentioned again in the debate, is that relating to the Wallace Collection, where it appears to cost £5,000 to collect £16,000.

There do not appear to me to be any serious arguments against the proposal, and there are a number of positive advantages. It has the added advantage of being in line with ideals and ideas which accord with Conservative philosophy. The words "decentralisation", "devolution of power" and "responsibility" are constantly being used on Conservative platforms. I am asking the Government on this occasion to practise those sentiments. We have seen precious little evidence of their doing so over the past two years. Instead, the Bill represents an example of creeping State control embodied in the person of the Paymaster-General.

Mr. Philip Goodhart (Beckenham)

For once I find myself in fairly broad agreement with the interpretation of Conservative principles put forward by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett), which I do not expect will be the case on many occasions.

I have no feeling of revulsion against the idea of imposing charges for entrance to museums or galleries. I recall that in 1955 when I visited Leningrad I was charged the equivalent of more than 50p to enter the Winter Palace Museum. Last Monday week I went to Versailles. I was charged when I went into the Palace; I was charged when I went into the gallery there; I was charged when I went into the grounds; I was charged when I went to the Petit Trianon; and I was charged when I went into the Museum of Carriages. In all, the charges that the French imposed upon me again came close to 50p. I feel no sense of moral outrage, therefore, that we should be asked to pay entrance charges. It is common practice within Common Market countries and in most parts of the world where there are museums and galleries.

But I regret that the Government have presented their policy in a way that appears to have alienated both the establishment of the art world and the informed public. I do not believe that that need have happened. As the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said in Committee on 2nd March: If the Government had said that the amount of money spent on the national museums and galleries was colossal and something had to be done about it, and that it was proposed to raise a substantial sum of money by charging visitors considerable sums to go into the museums and galleries, and that that money was to be allocated to the museums and galleries themselves, then it would have been understandable and I would not have opposed it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 2nd March, 1972; c. 195.] We all know what will happen. For every £100 raised by the museum in charges, £100 will be clawed back by the Treasury. In fact, £110 will be clawed back by the Treasury, because on top of the £100 there will be £10 of valued added tax, though I understand that that £10 tax charge will be returned to the gallery in an administrative way. What I object to is that there will be no incentive for the museums to try to attract visitors, a point so strongly made by the hon. Member for Greenwich.

Over the past 200 years this country has built up a great museum tradition. A great museum curator must have two sides to his nature. He must be part scholar and part showman. In the past we have been immensely strong on the scholarship side and rather weak on the showman side. This is improving. I have been vastly impressed by the qualities of showmanship on display at the Commonwealth Institute near my home, and the British Museum seems to me to have been showing a substantial improvement in the past few years. But there are other museums in London that still manage to give the impression that looking after the public is a bore which must be tolerated with regret.

I want our museums to become ever more conscious of the needs of the public. If they were allowed to keep the extra money raised by the entrance charges they would have an incentive to give the public the service it needs on such questions as later opening on certain weekdays, but under the scheme proposed by the Government there will be no incentive for the staff, as far as I can see. I had always thought that incentives were the core of Conservative philosophy.

I am sure we all appreciate that the charges were part of a deal struck by the Paymaster-General with the Treasury in 1970. In 1970 it seemed rather a good bargain that £18 million should be received for expansion in return for £1 million a year imposed in charges, but since then the economic climate has changed considerably. We have become vastly more open-handed. We no longer think of strangling lame ducks but build warm duck houses so that they may be tended with loving care, and what appeared to be a good deal in 1970 is not necessarily such a good bargain in 1972.

I do not think that the Treasury should now claim its pound of flesh. It should be prepared to forgo half, nine-tenths or even all of the charges collected by the museums and galleries. I believe that that is what Parliament wants. The way we can tell the Treasury to take a more generous line in this matter is by supporting the new Clause, and that I intend to do.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. David Price (Eastleigh)

I must apologise to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have followed the Bill through all its stages that I intervene now for the first time at this late stage in the Bill. The House will realise that I was not available to take part at any earlier stage. I have put down certain Amendments to which I wish to speak. I think it is in order to discuss two of them with this new Clause.

I should like briefly to say a word on Amendment No. 17, which I would say to the Opposition is infinitely better than their new Clause. Their new Clause is a bad compromise; they would retain only half of the revenue from charges in any museum or gallery. It is to me an important matter of principle that the revenue should stay with the gallery or museum concerned. I am anxious, as indeed is practically every hon. Member present today, that the trustees of each gallery, each museum, should be allowed to retain the revenue arising from these charges for the benefit of the gallery or museum in question.

I would add little to the financial case, which I thought was admirably put by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett). It was sound Tory philosophy. But the substance of my case—and this is where there may be a slight difference between him and me—is not so much in financial terms as in management terms.

These charges are not a tax. It is important to realise that they are not a tax, and because they are not a tax it is essential that the trustees should have control over the revenue arising from them. It has been made clear by Government spokesmen in both Houses at all stages that these charges are not a tax but are necessary charges to increase the revenues of our galleries and museums. Therefore, if I may say so with respect to Treasury Ministers, the traditional Treasury arguments against hypothecation of taxation, which are strong, do not apply in this case. Indeed, they are totally irrelevant. To put at its simplest, the case we deploy in these several new Clauses and Amendments is, in my judgment, a matter of how far the Government are prepared to trust the integrity and responsibility of the trustees of our galleries and museums.

Let us remember that they are distinguished men and women who give their service, their energy and their time for the public good in the management of these museums and galleries. As the hon. Member for Greenwich very rightly pointed out, it is a basic concept of Tory philosophy—I hope of Labour Party philosophy too—that people in positions of public responsibility should be given a degree of independence and of personal responsibility.

Therefore, to me the case for this group of new Clauses and Amendments rests not so much on financial terms; it rests rather on the whole question of trust, responsibility, independence and, I would add, even the self-respect of the trustees of our galleries and museums. It is on those lines that I argue my case.

We all know that many trustees do not like these charges. They have made this clear. It is also fair to say that most of them, as reasonable and responsible men and women, are prepared to accept these charges, but I think it is important that they should be allowed a minimum degree of freedom of action which my Amendment incorporates.

My case is a very modest one. I should point out to my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that it is strongly supported by the National Art Collections Fund. If the House would bear with me I should like to read a short extract from a letter to The Times on 24th August this year by Mr. Hugh Leggatt. It says: The National Art Collections Fund passed by an overwhelming majority a motion to the effect that it expresses its support for the Amendment to the Museums and Galleries Admission Charges Bill tabled by Mr. David Price and other M.P.s to the effect that the proceeds from any further charges to the National Museums and Galleries should be at the disposal of the institutions themselves; and approves that the text of this resolution be notified to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a copy to the Paymaster-General It would be interesting to know from my hon. Friend what the Treasury's reply was.

It was the great G. K. Chesterton who once wrote: Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere. I trust the Treasury will agree with us to draw the line where we modestly suggest and not where the Treasury traditionally draws it—somewhere in Great George Street.

I turn to my other Amendment, No. 16, which deals with a rather different matter. It concerns the implementation of Section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970. I briefly remind the House what Section 4 says: Any person undertaking the provision of any building or premises to which the public are to be admitted, whether on payment or otherwise, shall, in the means of access both to and within the building or premises, and in the parking facilities and sanitary conveniences to be available (if any), make provision, in so far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable, for the needs of members of the public visiting the building or premises who are disabled. We all know that many galleries and museums have not been able to implement Section 4 to date. They are not in any way opposed to the principle of Section 4 but the finance has simply not been available. I know, we all know, that my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts, more properly known as the Paymaster-General, has recognised the importance of improving the buildings in our galleries and museums. He made this very clear on Second Reading of the Bill in another place.

I am today arguing the case with relation to people in one particular minority group of the community, those who are physically disabled. To me the yardstick of whether a building is available to the disabled is, "Can it accommodate a wheelborne citizen?". It is a fair yardstick to use. If it can accommodate the wheelborne, it can accommodate the semi-ambulant whose disabilities are less severe.

I must declare an interest. The House knows that I am a member of a disabled family. Therefore I am in a way arguing in favour of my own family, but I think that in this case the House will accept that it is not an entirely unfair thing to do.

This problem of access for the disabled is quite separate from the matter of admission charges. We will return to that later in our discussions today. Access for those in a wheelchair means independence; it means self-respect. This is what the wheelborne citizen desires most of all. He wishes to be a member of the general community, to do what we here are all able to do and not to be restricted by his disability. The wheelchair citizen lives in a two-dimensional world whereas we live in a three-dimensional world. In this modern age the wheelborne citizen no longer accepts the rôle of a third-class citizen. Like the rest of us, he is involved in the revolution of rising expectations.

I would quote from a very remarkable and very disabled citizen, Mr. Paul Hunt, in a book called "Stigma" which may be familiar to hon. Members: We are challenging society to take account of us, to listen to what we have to say, to acknowledge us as an integral part of society itself. We do not want ourselves, or anyone else, treated as second-class citizens and put away out of sight and out of mind. Many of us are just beginning to refuse to be put away, to insist that we are part of life, too. That is really my case for Amendment No. 16.

If as a society we are to integrate our wheelborne citizens into the community, then we must do much more to ensure physical access to our buildings for them, as Section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act lays down. But Section 4 cannot be implemented without the finance. Therefore, I am suggesting that, at this moment, when we are imposing charges in our museums and galleries, it is appropriate that high priority in the use of that revenue should be given to ensuring access into and within our museums and galleries.

There are two aspects. There is, first, the problem of converting old buildings. This can be very expensive and very difficult. Those of us who speak for the disabled would not ask that every part of the total collection should immediately be made available. For instance, at the Victoria and Albert Museum, there are little mezzanine floors. The floors containing the main collections, to use an Italian phrase the piano mobile, should be available for wheelborne access. Secondly, when we are building new buildings—and one thinks of the many exciting proposals in the White Paper—we must ensure that from the drawing board they are so designed that access to wheelborne citizens affords no problem.

I will illustrate the dangers from two personal experiences. The first was a few years ago, when my wife and I went to the Tate Gallery on a Sunday. I am luckily still strong so I was able to haul her chair up the front steps. If I had not been strong, God knows how we would have got in. But when we got to the main floor—it was a special exhibition for which payment was charged—we were refused admission because she was in a wheelchair. I was told "We cannot have people in wheelchairs here on a Sunday."

The other occasion was more recently. The Army Museum, near where I live in Chelsea, has been opened since the passing of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I took my wife there and found that it is totally impossible for anyone in a wheelchair to gain access unless the accompanying person is strong. Of course, one can get help from the custodians, who are always superb. I took the matter up with the Army Department and arranged a meeting with the director, who could not have been more helpful. But he said that when the old Ministry of Works accepted the building it did so although nothing had been done for wheelborne citizens. There are plans for putting in a lift on the west side which will cost, I understand, about £100,000. Yet the old Ministry of Works accepted that building although it did not fulfil Section 4 of the Act.

So, even though the Act has been passed, we are still getting new buildings which do not fulfil these criteria. Both the director and the staff of the Army Museum are helpful and sympathetic in every way. There is no discredit to them.

I realise that this is a narrow enabling Bill. Therefore, my hon. Friend may argue that it would be inappropriate to write in a specific requirement along the lines of Amendment No. 16. I am a reasonable man, as the whole House knows, and I am prepared to accept this argument—provided that he gives me satisfaction in the undertaking that I require, that he, my right hon. And noble Friend and the Treasury Ministers will ensure that all galleries and museums for which they provide grant in aid and capital funds will be put in a financial position to implement Section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. He knows me well enough to realise that if he gives me that undertaking I will accept it from him. He is an honourable man, but should his successors fail to fulfil that undertaking I will use every parliamentary device at my disposal to ensure that it is fulfilled. I know that he is an understanding man, so I hope that his characteristic understanding of the problems of the disabled will be exemplified by a precise undertaking along the lines of my Amendment.

4.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee)

You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have been good enough to indicate that we may discuss a number of these new Clauses and Amendments together, and it might be of assistance if now I deal with them, although not necessarily in the order in which they appear. You will have noticed that no hon. Member has spoken to new Clause No. 3, and I imagine therefore that I would not be discourteous to the House or to any individual Member if I did not make any comment about it. In any case, by comparison with the other matters we are discussing, it is probably a comparative detail, but again I intend no discourtesy in saying that.

Perhaps in opening it would be right of me to make a point touched upon already by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price). It is one that is very familiar to the familiar faces—if I may put it that way—which I see before me and behind me from the nine amicable Sittings we had in Standing Committee. However, it does need saying at the outset and I shall say it again.

This Bill is an enabling Bill only. There is not—and there is not intended to be included within it—any detail at all, about the charges and how they operate and the exemptions and the rest. It applies only to a limited number—a very important group but only a limited number—of national galleries and museums in respect of which there is doubt or certainty that they cannot charge. It is for that reason that, although, of course, hon. Members, in order to get the arguments on their feet—quite understandably—are seeking to amend the Bill, nevertheless, there will be occasions when I shall venture to suggest—although whether my arguments will be persuasive enough I do not know—that it is not an appropriate way forward in one or other direction by actually amending the Bill. But in return I naturally propose, as I hope I can claim I did in Committee, to answer in broad and general terms, and I shall certainly not stand on the narrow, detailed and legalistic point I have just made, however important it is.

It seems to me, therefore, that there are two broad categories of new Clause and Amendment to which I must address myself. I take, first, the very cogent argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh about access to buildings by the disabled. He was very clear to differentiate—and I am grateful to him—between charges for admission by disabled people on the one hand and the physical access to the buildings on the other.

I should like to lend whatever transient authority I have and whatever emphasis I have in support of my hon. Friend's argument. To the very best of my knowledge—and I have made careful inquiry—the most stringent and careful provisions are being made for access by the disabled to the new buildings which are the consequence of the very remarkable advance to which hon. Members have paid tribute. I know, for example, that this is so in the case of the new building at the National Gallery.

I undertake most clearly and without equivocation that I shall make it my business to draw to the attention of all those responsible for these buildings the words my hon. Friend has used, and I believe and think that all concerned are very anxious indeed that Government buildings shall fulfil the same standards that we ask and require of others under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I think that this is of immense importance.

It happens that I have a special interest in this matter, although mercifully, it is not of the same kind as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh. But I have come close to it and I am at this moment engaged in a very modest building operation in which I have, I hope, so arranged things that rooms can be used by a disabled person. There is no merit in this because no additional cost in involved. It is just a matter of forethought—the width of doors, the position of the lavatory accommodation, and the rest—and it seems to me right that we should all of us, when we have the opportunity, seek to do these things. So this matter touches a very close feeling in me personally.

But my hon. Friend, possibly without meaning to, did illustrate one weakness, not of course in his argument, which is unanswerable, but in the method by which he would seek to achieve it. If he will, as I know he does from time to time, look at the Estimates for the national museums and galleries to which we are referring, he will see that it is not in money that passes through the hands of the trustees that the expenditures in which he is interested come.

For example, my hon. Friend made the right and fair point that the cost of adapting old buildings can sometimes be extremely high. But the adaption of these buildings is not something which falls upon the votes or moneys controlled by the trustees. I need not labour this point. It is clearly set out in the Estimates. It is one of the reasons why, if we were to accept the spirit of Amendment No. 16, we should not with the best will in the world achieve his objective. What we need is greater capital spending, which is, I am thankful to say, being acheved, and even if the money were allocated either in whole or in part from the admission charges, the spending would not be under the head that my hon. Friend is interested in.

What he and I, if I may allow myself to say so on this issue, because it is a non-party issue, have to do is to ensure that the capital programme does include proper allocations for the disabled. It is for this reason also that the argument that we could somehow improve the buildings if the charges were to be paid in whole or in part falls down as well. It really is extremely important to establish how the matter operates.

The money received from admission charges will be retained by the trustees. This is not a new practice. It has happened frequently with other services in the past. It has happened with things like special exhibitions, reproduction rights, television rights, film rights and the rest. It has been going on under all Governments and there is nothing new about it. The money will be retained in the hands of the trustees or their officers along the lines with which they have long been familiar.

Nor do I accept the argument of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett) that this is a tax. Admittedly, he and I have had this argument before and he does not seem to have been persuaded by what I had hoped was the blinding clarity of my analogy. The right hon. Gentleman did not argue that charges for spectacles were a tax. He knows a good deal about that subject because the Labour Party took off charges and then put them back. They know a good deal about doing things both ways—and it is becoming a growing practice—but certainly they would not have said that it is a tax. The argument is about what proportion of the cost of the spectacles should be borne by the general taxpayer and what proportion by the user. The same argument applies here in relation to the museum and gallery service. Therefore, I do not accept it as a tax in that sense.

It will still be true that, even now, the charges meet only about a twentieth of the total recurrent expenditure on museums and galleries. This is a matter of balance. I realise that there are arguments both ways about what that balance should be, but I cannot accept it as a tax in that sense.

I move on to consider whether it would be appropriate for there still to be some kind of incentive in terms of charges for those who were particularly successful in their operations.

I have explained that I do not believe we would secure the objective by the total sum of money being retained by the trustees for their own purposes within the museums, certainly not in capital terms. I find attraction in the argument—I say

this and leave it at that—that in terms of museums and galleries they are less favourably placed. It is somewhat hard, as some of them might feel, if there is a differentiation in this Bill. On the other hand, there is the argument, which is a persuasive one, that it seems hard that every single penny, no matter how successful a gallery is, should be taken into account in the balancing procedures between the Treasury and the trustees.

I wish to make it clear that the Government are anxious to encourage museums and galleries to earn as much as possible through admission charges—this is not something that should be shied away from, in that the galleries and museums should encourage increasing numbers of people to attend—and also in other ways which have been operating for some time, for example, in the sale of publications. This has enabled them to benefit if the earnings exceed the forecasts. The Government certainly wish to come to an agreement with the institutions about devoting part of the additional receipts to improving facilities for the public. Proposals have already been made, as part of a series of measures, to improve the general arrangements for administering the museums and galleries. I wish to make it clear that although proposals have been made, discussions are still in progress. It would be discourteous to the trustees if I were to anticipate those discussions. I hope that what I have said will show that there is something here for the trustees and that this will be of general assistance to them.

I end as I began, by respectfully reminding the House of the technical nature of the Bill and of the fact that we shall get greater flexibility, not by writing matters into a Bill, but in the form of administrative arrangements. I have already given two undertakings and have expressed my view. I hope the House will feel disposed to accept my advice that it would not be wise to add this new Clause to the Bill.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 196.

Division No. 337.]	AYES	[5.1 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Armstrong, Ernest	Barnes, Michael
Albu, Austen	Ashton, Joe	Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Atkinson, Norman	Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Baxter, William
Beaney, Alan	Goodhart, Philip	Ogden, Eric
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Gourley, Harry	O'Halloran, Michael
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Grant, George (Morpeth)	O'Malley, Brian
Bidwell, Sydney	Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	Orme, Stanley
Bishop, E. S.	Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Oswald, Thomas
Booth, Albert	Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)	Palmer, Arthur
Bradley, Tom	Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Broughton, Sir Alfred	Hardy, Peter	Pardoe, John
Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Pendry, Tom
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)	Hattersley, Roy	Pentland, Norman
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Heffer, Eric S.	Perry, Ernest G.
Buchan, Norman	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Prescott, John
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Probert, Arthur
Campbell, I (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Rankin, John
Cant, R. B.	Hunter, Adam	Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Carmichael, Neil	Janner, Greville	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	John, Brynmor	Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Cohen, Stanley	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&R'dnor)
Concannon, J. D.	Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Conlan, Bernard	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Rowlands, Ted
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Crawshaw, Richard	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Kaufman, Gerald	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Cunningham, Cr. J. A. (Whitehaven)	Kelley, Richard	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Dalyell, Tam	Kerr, Russell	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Lambie, David	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Lamborn, Harry	Sillars, James
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Lamond, James	Silverman, Julius
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	Latham, Arthur	Skinner, Dennis
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Lawson, George	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Dempsey, James	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Spearing, Nigel
Doig, Peter	Leonard, Dick	Spriggs, Leslie
Dormand, J. D.	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Stallard, A. W.
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	Lipton, Marcus	Steel, David
Driberg, Tom	Loveridge, John	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Dunn, James A.	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Strang, Gavin
Dunnett, Jack	McBride, Neil	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Eadie, Alex	McCartney, Hugh	Swain, Thomas
Edelman, Maurice	McGuire, Michael	Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff. W.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Mackenzie, Gregor	Torney, Tom
Ellis, Tom	Mackintosh, John P.	Urwin, T. W.
Evans, Fred	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Varley, Eric G.
Ewing, Harry	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Wainwright, Edwin
Faulds, Andrew	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)	Marsden, F.	Wallace, George
		Weitzman, David
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Foot, Michael	Mayhew, Christopher	Whitlock, William
Ford, Ben	Meacher, Michael	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Forrester, John	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)	Mendelson, John	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Freeson, Reginald	Milne, Edward	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Galpern, Sir Myer	Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Garrett, W. E.	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Woof, Robert
Gilbert, Dr. John	Moyle, Roland	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Mr. Joseph Harper and
Golding, John	Oakes, Gordon	Mr. James Hamilton.
NOES
Adley, Robert	Brewis, John	Cockeram, Eric
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian	Brinton, Sir Tatton	Cooke, Robert
Astor, John	Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Coombs, Derek
Atkins, Humphrey	Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Awdry, Daniel	Bryan, Sir Paul	Costain, A. P.
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)	Crouch, David
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Bullus, Sir Eric	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Ma[...].-Gen.Jack
Balniel, Rt. Hon. Lord	Burden, F. A.	Dean, Paul
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Benyon, W.	Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray & Nairn)	Dixon, Piers
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Carlisle, Mark	Dykes, Hugh
Biffen, John	Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Emery, Peter
Biggs-Davison, John	Cary, Sir Robert	Eyre, Reginald
Blaker, Peter	Channon, Paul	Fell, Anthony
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)	Chapman, Sydney	Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Body, Richard	Chichester-Clark, R.	Fidler, Michael
Boscawen, Hn. Robert	Churchill, W. S.	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Bossom, Sir Clive	Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Fookes, Miss Janet
Bowden, Andrew	Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Fowler, Norman
Bray, Ronald	Clegg, Walter	Fox, Marcus

Gibson-Watt, David	MacArthur, Ian	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	McCrindle, R. A.	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Glyn, Dr. Alan	McLaren, Martin	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Gower, Raymond	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Maurice (Farnham)	Rost, Peter
Gray, Hamish	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)	Russell, Sir Ronald
Green, Alan	Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Marten, Neil	Scott, Nicholas
Gummer, J. Selwyn	Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Gurden, Harold	Mawby, Ray	Simeons, Charles
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Sinclair, Sir George
Hall-Davis A. G. F.	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Miscampbell, Norman	Soref, Harold
Hannam, John (Exeter)	Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire, W)	Spence, John
Harrison Brian (Maldon)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Sproat, Iain
Harrison Col. Sir Harwood Eye	Molyneaux, James	Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Hawkins, Paul	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Hayhoe, Barney	Monro, Hector	Sutcliffe, John
Hicks, Robert	Montgomery, Fergus	Tapsell, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.	More, Jasper	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Hiley, Joseph	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Holland, Philip	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.	Tebbit, Norman
Holt, Miss Mary	Morrison, Charles	Temple, John M.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Murton, Oscar	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Hunt, John	Neave, Airey	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Iremonger, T. L.	Normanton, Tom	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
James, David	Nott, John	Trew, Peter
Jenkins, Patrick (Woodford)	Onslow, Cranley	Tugendhat, Christopher
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally	Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Jessel, Toby	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Jopling, Michael	Osborn, John	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)	Waddington, David
Kilfedder, James	Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)	Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Page, John (Harrow, W.)	Ward, Dame Irene
Kinsey, J. R.	Parkinson, Cecil	Weatherill, Bernard
Kirk, Peter	Pink, R. Bonner	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Knight, Mrs. Jill	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Knox, David	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Wilkinson, John
Lambton, Lord	Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.	Winterton, Nicholas
Lamont, Norman	Proudfoot, Wilfred	Woodnutt, Mark
Lane, David	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis	Worsley, Marcus
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Quennell, Miss J. M.	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Le Merchant, Spencer	Raison, Timothy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Longden, Sir Gilbert	Redmond, Robert	Mr. Victor Goodhew and
McAdden, Sir Stephen	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)	Mr. Tim Fortescue.

Question accordingly negatived.