Lords Sitting of 28 October 1952

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Chesham—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

ROCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
2.35 p.m.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

MISSING FOREIGN OFFICE OFFICIALS
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to articles published in two recent issues of the Sunday Times purporting to describe the personalities and careers of Messrs. Burgess and Maclean, who absented themselves without leave from their official duties in 1951, and alleging that Maclean had openly declared himself a Communist, had been drinking heavily, and had violently assaulted a colleague, in spite of which he was appointed head of the American Section of the Foreign Office; whether there is adequate foundation for these allegations; and if so, how the appointment can be justified.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the two articles referred to in the noble Lord's question. It will be realised that much information about Mr. Maclean has come to light since his disappearance which was not in the possession of the Foreign Office at the time when he was appointed Head of the American Department in October, 1950. It is now known, for example, that on more than one occasion before his dis-
1028
appearance Mr. Maclean made remarks suggesting that he was a Communist or sympathetic to Communism. This was not known at the time of his appointment.
Until the incidents mentioned in the question, Mr. Maclean had served with distinction in various posts, including Washington, since 1935. In May, 1950, he had a breakdown in Cairo and was sent home on leave. Reports then indicated that he had been drinking heavily and had assaulted a colleague. A serious view was taken of his conduct, but it was attributed to overstrain. In view of his state of health, he was not sent back to Cairo, and he underwent medical treatment in this country.
In October, 1950, he was pronounced fit for duty, and, in view of his outstandingly good record before his breakdown, it was decided that he should be given another trial in an appointment which would not subject him to undue strain. It should be understood that most of the more important questions affecting our relations with the United States are handled not by the American Department but by other departments dealing with the region, international organisation or particular question concerned. Mr. Maclean performed his official duties satisfactorily up to the date of his disappearance.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Marquess for his characteristically lucid reply, I must express a certain disappointment. If I followed him aright, the general tenor of the noble Marquess's reply is that much is known about Maclean and Burgess which was not known before. I should like to ask him: Does he not now think it ought to have been known before? I should like to ask him, for example, why the Foreign Office did not know that this man had been repeatedly drunk in public places? And is the noble Marquess aware that there is in existence a recording of a speech which Maclean, when in New York, long before the incidents with which we are now dealing, had insisted on delivering into a recording machine in the private apartments of a friend of a noble member of this House; that in that speech he openly declared himself a Communist, and a proselytising Communist, and that that record has for many years been available for inspection if required?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, it is very easy to say that we ought to have known. If I may say so, with great respect, it is always easy to be wise after the event. But we knew Mr. Maclean's background, we knew his distinguished career in the Foreign Office up to that time, and there was no reason to entertain any suspicion of him. Really, we cannot have people listening and taking down notes at every private party which a member of the Foreign Office attends. It is easy to say afterwards that we ought to have known, but we had no reason to be put upon inquiry. In fact, we did not know, and I see no reason for alleging that we ought to have known. As regards the somewhat detailed statement that the noble Lord made about the speech by Mr. Maclean, I have no information about that. If the noble Lord desires, I will make some inquiry about it and write to him. In the absence of any previous indication that he was going to raise this matter, I can only say I know nothing of it.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, the relevance of that question is that I am informed that the recording of the speech in question has been in the possession of the F.B.I. in the United States for many years, and the suggestion behind my question is that therefore it might have been known to Her Majesty's Government. May I ask one more question—that is, whether the persons who recommended and approved these appointments are still recommending and approving appointments and, if so, whether the noble Marquess is perfectly satisfied that their judgment is reliable?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, there was nothing unusual about this appointment. It was made in the normal course and because, as I said in my original answer to the Question, it was decided to give Mr. Maclean a further trial in view of the fact that he had had medical treatment and was declared fit. There was nothing unusual about it, and the procedure which was followed was not in any way an abnormal procedure.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, there is one question I should like to ask about something of which I am not quite clear. Is it not a fact that the occasional violence of Maclean when in drink was a
1030
matter of considerable comment in at least one of his posts before he came hack to the Foreign Office?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I have already referred to that. I said that we had had reports of the actions of Mr. Maclean in Cairo and that we then realised he had been drinking. I do not know if that is what the noble Lord wants, but that is the position. That is all we knew, and it was because we thought that that was due to overstrain, and because he underwent treatment and was reported to be fit for further employment, that further employment was, in fact, given to him on trial.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, my point was not so much that he had been known to drink, but that it was known that the drinking had been accompanied by violence.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, it is in the question that he had in the course of a violent bout broken a colleague's leg. There is no denial of that. Rightly or wrongly—I am not for a moment saying wrongly—the view was taken that this was due to overstrain, and that it was capable of cure; and when he had undergone treatment, the view was taken that he had been cured and should be given further employment upon trial.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, did the noble Marquess observe the apparent desire of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that we should invite the American F.B.I. to assist us in finding out the records of our own public servants?
LORD ELTON: My Lords, we are not intending to debate this across the floor of the House, but I should like to say that the point of my question was that if this was known to officials in America, it ought to have been known to officials in this country.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess if the appointments to which he referred are controlled by a committee or by an individual; and if by a committee, would he tell your Lordships the names of the persons on that committee?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I have said that the normal Foreign Office procedure was followed.

1031
With respect to the noble Lord, I have no intention of giving to this House the names of civil servants who are carrying out their tasks.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I am not clear from the reply of the noble Marquess, when he refers to what was known before, the drunkenness, whether he says it was fully known to the Foreign Office that these men were proselytising Communists.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make that clear. What I said in answer to the question was that it was now known that on more than one occasion before his disappearance Maclean had made remarks suggesting that he was a Communist. I dealt with the drunkenness question in the other part of my reply, where I was dealing with the reports upon him on his return from Cairo. I think that that is quite clear.

THEFTS FROM NATIONALISED SERVICES
2.46 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the annual total money value of the goods (including passengers' luggage) stolen when in charge of or being carried by (a) British Railways; (b) British Road Services; (c) British Overseas Airways and (d) British European Airways, since these organisations were established by Parliament and what percentage of the value carried is lost by theft.]
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, as the information requested by the noble Lord contains a considerable number of figures, I will, with your Lordships' and the noble Lord's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
LORD SEMPIL: My Lords, I beg, to thank the noble Earl for the trouble he has taken. Already having had a conversation with him prior to the meeting of your Lordships' House, I feel sure that that is the best course to pursue. Perhaps when I have studied the figures the noble Earl will allow me to ask for further information, should such be necessary.
Following are the figures referred to by Lord Birkenhead:
1. The British Transport Commission and the two Airways Corporations have provided the following information:—
(a) British Railways
The following claims were paid in respect of traffic (excluding minerals and livestock) which was lost, stolen and pilfered

£

1948

2,778,367

1949

1,728,986

1950

1,406,835

1951

1,707,466

(b) British Road Services
1948, 1949, 1950 (no figures are readily available).
1951: Claims paid and outstanding in respect of goods lost, stolen, pilfered and damaged amount to £653,609, of which about one-third is estimated to represent claims for damage.
(c) British Overseas Airways Corporation
(d) British European Airways Corporation
The Corporations estimate that thefts of goods carried by them or entrusted to them for carriage were as follows:—

B.O.A.C.

B.E.A.

£

£

1946–47

20,784*

970

1947–48

38,388*

3,600

1948–49

43,383*

1,230

1949–50

28,107

2,430

1950–51

15,785

2,500

1951–52

40,000

5,000

* Excluding British South American Airways Corporation for which figures are not readily available.

2. The total value of the goods carried by the various undertakings is not known.

CORONATION ARRANGEMENTS
2.47 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government which Minister in the House of Lords is to be responsible for answering questions and representations concerning the arrangements for Her Majesty's Coronation for which Her Majesty's Government have responsibility.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, it is not proposed that any one Minister shall be responsible in your Lordships' House for answering questions

1033
on matters concerned with those arrangements for the Coronation which lie outside the field of the Royal Prerogative. Many Departments will inevitably be concerned with particular aspects of these arrangements, and it has been thought best, and most convenient for your Lordships, that noble Lords on the Front Bench who are now responsible for replying to questions on behalf of particular Ministries should be responsible for replying to questions on Coronation arrangements affecting their particular Ministries. Of course, on any general questions to which the Prime Minister would reply in another place, I myself, as Leader of your Lordships' House, will be responsible for the answer here.

MEDICAL ACT, 1950 (PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT AS HOUSE OFFICERS) REGULATIONS APPROVAL ORDER OF COUNCIL, 1952
2.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the object of these regulations is merely to carry out what was laid upon the General Medical Council under the Medical Act, 1950, which provided that they should prescribe a period of pre-registration service for doctors before they went into practice. As your Lordships will see, the period is twelve months. Your Lordships will remember that it was originally intended to prescribe a period of twelve months in the Bill itself. But this was changed by Amendment and was left to the General Medical Council who have, in fact, decided on twelve months as the period for which medical students should work in hospital as house officers before they are finally registered and go into general practice. I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Medical Act, 1950 (Period of Employment as House Officers) Regulations Approval Order of Council, 1952, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, as, I believe, the only member of your Lordships' House, and certainly the only lay member in your Lordships' House, who is a member of the General Medical Council, perhaps I may say that this 1034
Order is the result of a good deal of study, negotiation and discussion with those concerned, and it is highly satisfactory to think that the matter has reached this stage.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, as one who took an active part in the debate on the Medical Act when it was before your Lordships' House, I should like to say how gratifying it is that these regulations should be submitted to your Lordships for Affirmative Resolution, rather than by drifting through in a spate of regulations open to attack only by a negative Motion. I am greatly comforted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said in regard to the careful study that has been given to this question. Our anxieties have been lest this regulation should be introduced before there was an assurance that the necessary posts would be available. There are other points which give rise to anxiety. After graduating, a medical student is able to secure provisional registration only when he succeeds in getting an appointment which will enable him to obtain the necessary twelve months' experience entitling him to permanent registration. One is naturally anxious that these men or women should not be helplessly drifting, and that they should immediately, or without undue delay, be posted to appointments which will give them the experience they require. So far as I can see, in Acts of Parliament up to date there is no provision by which this applicant for provisional registration can receive any remuneration. In the old days, when he was registered and waiting for a house appointment, until a vacancy arose a man could seek his living in some other sphere. I hope your Lordships will bear in mind the kind of difficulties which may arise and will keep a watchful eye on developments, so that these young graduates will not be submitted to a very irksome delay in attaining permanent registration so that they can earn their living.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, perhaps I might rise and satisfy the noble Lord on that point so far as I am able. In fact, arrangements have been made to meet this point. There is no doubt that the man in question will start to make his arrangements for a post as and when he expects to qualify, in the hope that he will in fact be successful in qualifying. The General Medical Council have published a list of approved house posts

1035
which, as your Lordships can see, is quite a formidable one and which I am informed gives every opportunity for the person concerned to find an adequate position when he qualifies and leaves the hospital medical school.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I should like to say that the bulk of those concerned with medical administration in this country regard this procedure as a definite advance. It will improve the status of the profession; it will give the young doctor who has passed his qualifying examinations a period in which he will be, as it were, under surveillance but at the same time able to carry on his work as an individual. I believe that it will be found to be a very good thing for the medical profession and a very good thing for the young men starting on their career.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PLOUGHING GRANTS (No. 2) SCHEME, 1952
2.54 p.m.
THE MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, this Ploughing Grants (No. 2) Scheme, which applies to England and Wales, really continues the basic grants of £5 an acre for the ordinary land which was a feature of the No. 1 Scheme. I am told that, particularly in England, there is a considerable amount of very old grassland which might be ploughed up to great advantage, and in most cases there is a provision that up to £10 an acre may be paid as a ploughing grant. In each of these cases prior approval will be required. It may interest your Lordships to know what progress has been made since last February as a result of these ploughing grants. Whereas in 1951–52 there was a decline in the tillage acreage of some half a million acres, that trend has now been reversed, and between 1951 and 1952 there has been an increase of 130,000 acres. Therefore, I think we may say that the Scheme has had the affect of increasing the tillage acreage, which was the object the Minister of Agriculture had in view. I hope your Lordships will approve the Motion.
Moved, That the Ploughing Grants (No. 2) Scheme, 1952, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Home.)
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl whether income tax has to be paid on these grants. Is the farmer required to return the sums of ploughing grants for the purposes of income tax or not? Obviously, that would make a tremendous difference.
THE EARL OF HOME: I understand that they go in with the other items. However, perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to make further inquiries about that point and communicate with him at a later stage.
EARL JOWITT: I should be grateful to the noble Earl. If they are put in with the other items, I am afraid they rank for purposes of income tax and that, of course, ought to be known.
THE EARL OF HOME: Perhaps I may elucidate the matter a little later.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURE (PLOUGHING GRANTS) (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) SCHEME, 1952.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, this Scheme really follows exactly the form of the English Scheme. Perhaps it may be of interest to any of your Lordships who come from Scotland to know that in Scotland the same tendency as in England and Wales is recognisable since the first Scheme was applied—namely, that while there was a considerable decline in acreage (I think the figure showed a decrease of 38,000 acres in 1951), the downward trend has been reversed and we have regained 12,000 acres. Again, it would seem that these Schemes are having the desired effect. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) (Scotland) (No. 2) Scheme, 1952, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Home.)

AGRICULTURE (CALF SUBSIDIES) BILL
2.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, in normal circumstances my noble friend Lord Carrington would have moved the Second Reading of this Bill, but he has

1037
an engagement outside which he was unable to break, and he has asked me to apologise to your Lordships. The background against which I move the Second Reading of this Bill is one which is painfully familiar to your Lordships and to the country. Meat, which a comparatively short time ago was plentiful and cheap, is now scarce and dear; and the prospect is that it is likely to remain so. If we compare, for instance, the import figures of 1947 and 1951, we find that in 1947 we were able to import 478,000 tons, whereas in 1951 we were able to import only 150,000 tons. Therefore, the quantities of imports available to us are much less, and, of course, the price is much higher. I believe your Lordships will all be agreed that we must produce more beef from our home farms, and produce it more quickly.
This Bill therefore gives to the Minister of Agriculture, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, the power to make schemes to pay grants to farmers for calves of a beef type. In the last price review, £4,500,000 was set aside for this purpose, and it is estimated that at this price we should be able to get an additional 400,000 calves of beef type. This Bill is, of course, no more than a continuation of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1949, under which calf subsidies were paid. And, this being so, I think it is really only a question whether a subsidy is the best way to expend the £4,500,000 or whether it would have been better and more advantageously applied by means of an increase in the price of the end product. None of us likes subsidies, and that point might be a matter for argument. But when we consider that it is our object to increase the number of beef animals as quickly as we can, I think that the subsidy or grant method, which the last Government started and which we are carrying on, has certain advantages. The breeder and rearer can count on the grant for at least three years. It was the experience (I think the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will perhaps confirm this) that in the two years after 1947 the number of qualifying calves rose by something like 450,000. I think that was a record increase in beef production. The Government believe that this experience will be repeated and that we can, by certain adjustments in the subsidy, improve on the quality of the animals which qualify.
1038
This Bill does not contain administrative details, but I think your Lordships would like some indication as to how it is proposed to work it. The subsidy will be paid on steers, as before. The only variation is in respect of heifer calves. I think one criticism of the previous Act might reasonably have been that money was paid out unnecessarily on some heifer calves of a dairy type. I think everyone will agree that that was a valid criticism. The £5 will be paid on heifer calves for fattening and for beef calves for further breeding, for more good beef-type heifers must be reared for breeding if we are to increase the number of calves by something like 400,000. I am afraid that no scheme which involves inspection can be fool-proof. In Scotland we have no dual-purpose animals, and therefore the scheme will be easier to work. In England it will be a little more difficult, but the Minister of Agriculture believes that the inspection system is fair and can be made acceptable.
There are three final points which I should like to make. There will be no gap in this scheme between the 1949 Act of the last Government and this Act, since the grant of £5 can be paid in respect of any animal born on or after October, 1951. So far as the age of certification is concerned, normally the calves will be marked at not less than eight months, but in order to meet conditions in the Highlands of Scotland, and in hill areas in England where, because of shortage of winter feed, the breeder has to get rid of the calf more quickly, marking can be done at six months. There is only one other point that I wish to mention. It is possible that this subsidy might be abused—that it might be taken where the beast had already been sold. In such a case the Ministry of Food will see that the necessary amount is deducted from the price of the beast when it is sold. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me these few words. I am not one of the Agricultural Ministers, but I move this Second Reading in response to my noble friend's request. This is a United Kingdom Bill; I hope your Lordships will feel that it is worth while and that it will help in the very necessary campaign, which we all have at heart, to increase the amount of meat production from our own soil. I beg to move.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Home.)
3.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl for his brief and clear exposition of this Bill. I am sure that from that point of view we have not suffered from the absence of his colleague at the Ministry of Agriculture. On behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House I welcome this Bill, because I share the noble Earl's belief that it will contribute towards the increase of production of home-killed meat which we desire. This is a Bill that has had the support of all Parties in another place and I have no doubt it will receive an equal measure of support here.
My noble friend opposite has pointed out that the policy of paying a subsidy towards the cost of calf rearing was, in fact, introduced by the 1945 Labour Government. It was, of course, a part of the agricultural expansion programme which we put in hand in 1947. I think your Lordships will be gratified to observe that this is an example of continuity of agricultural policy, which is so important for the prosperity of British agriculture. The success of the first calf subsidy, as the noble Lord was good enough to indicate, was proved by an increase of 450,000 in the calf population between 1947 and 1949. But in 1950 the downward trend began which is continuing at the present time. By March of this year there had been a fall of 300,000 in the calf population. This trend must be stopped if we are to prevent a decline in the number of our beef cattle in four or five years' time.
The more frequent slaughterings of calves in the past two years have been due to economic conditions as well as to Government policy; but I think—and I do not see why we should not be frank in this matter—we were too optimistic about the possibility of getting the same output without the subsidy. We hoped—and this was the reason for our policy—that a better price for end products would be a sufficient stimulus to maintain the number of calves being reared. But I remember, when I used to go round the counties, being warned quite often by farmers that they could not afford to go on rearing without the subsidy. I reported these forebodings to my Minister. This is, in fact, what has happened. Many small farmers have been unable to go on
1040
without the benefit of the subsidy or without the certainty that the subsidy would be renewed. I am therefore extremely glad that the Government have decided to try to avert this downward trend by resuming the policy which has already shown that it works.
Now, I know there are two schools of thought about the relative merits of sub-sidising production costs and raising the price of end products. I think there is an honest difference of opinion between those people who believe that public money should be injected at the beginning of production and those who believe it should be injected at the end. But to my mind this is rather like the dispute between public ownership and free enterprise, in the sense that both have a place in our economy. For my part, I do not believe—and this is a personal opinion—that we can guarantee the stability of British agriculture which we all desire without controlling to some degree prices as well as costs. But the suitable method in a particular case should surely depend on the circumstances of that case. I agree entirely with the noble Earl opposite and the Government that if we want to encourage calf-rearing, the best way to do so is to pay a subsidy to the rearer and breeder.
This, to my mind—I think some noble Lords will be of an opposite way of thinking and, therefore, it is perhaps worth while to state the case quite briefly—has three distinct advantages over the alternative method of a higher price for the finished product. As experience has shown, it does result in the rearing of more calves, whereas a higher price for fat cattle may or may not work through to the owners of store cattle and dairy herds. Secondly, it undoubtedly saves the taxpayers' money, because a higher end price would cost much more than the subsidy if it was to achieve anything like the same result as the proposed subsidy to the calf breeder and rearer. Finally, it is much the quickest way of getting more beef—and that is what we all want—because obviously it cuts out the delay while the higher fat stock price is percolating through from the top to the bottom, to the people who are engaged in breeding and rearing calves.
I also think that the Government are right in restoring the subsidy for heifer calves of beef types instead of limiting

1041
it to steer calves. We should not get the number of calves we want if the subsidy were limited in this way, but—and this is a doubt which I express now—I am much afraid that difficulties will arise in the administration of the heifer calf subsidy, because the Government have not drawn a sufficiently clear line between beef and dairy types. The pure dairy breeds should certainly be excluded, and I think the noble Earl's criticism of the previous Government was perfectly fair: we were unwise to pay a subsidy for heifers of dairy types as well as for the beef type of heifer. Looking back—it is always easy to be wise after the event—I think it would have been better if we had not done so. I am glad that the Government are excluding dairy types altogether. I think the colour-marked heifers which are easily recognisable should be included. I am glad the Government are going to do that.
But here is where the trouble will arise. I feel certain that there will be all kinds of difficulties when beef animals have to be sorted out from dairy-type heifers in dual-purpose breeds. I think that is the main problem that this Bill poses. Let us look at some of the difficulties. There will be an enormous amount of work thrown upon certifying officers who have to travel about from one small farm to another all over the country to look into these matters. There will be sharp differences of opinion between farmers and officials of the Ministry. The farmer will take one view about the animal and the official may take another. That has happened before now, and it may well happen again. Another thing which has occurred to me in studying the report of what Ministers said in another place, is that the expectation appears to be that three out of four of these heifers in these dual purpose breeds will be suitable for beef. If that is the case, I cannot see why the Government have not extended the subsidy to all heifers in dual purpose breeds. It surely costs very little more money. I apologise for not giving the noble Earl notice of this matter, and I understand that he may not be able to reply to it to-day as he does not belong to the Department, but, if he could reply, we should all find his answer most helpful. We support this Bill and will try to expedite its passage through this House. We hope that the schemes which will be
1042
made under the Bill and by which its provisions will become operative will be made with the least possible delay.
3.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should just like to say that I am most grateful to the noble Earl for the response he has given to the Second Reading of this Bill, on which, of course, there is a large degree of Party agreement. I think it is true that there will probably he some difficulty in the administration of this scheme, and I will draw to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture the suggestion of the noble Earl that all dual purpose animals should qualify. I am afraid I am not competent to answer that question this afternoon. As a matter of fact, these proposals will lead to some economy. The proposal now is to appoint full-time inspectors. That is taking a leaf out of the Scottish book, which is not a bad thing, because in Scotland our costs of administering the calf subsidy were about 2s. a calf, whereas in England I understand it was 4s. a calf. We have always had a full-time inspectorate, so it is calculated that the introduction of a permanent inspectorate here will save £75,000 a year in administration, which will be all to the good. I will bring the proposals of the noble Earl to the attention of the Minister.
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of October 21), Bill read 3a, and passed.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of October 21):
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time. On the Second Reading we had a fairly full discussion of this Bill, which I then said was a Bill with limited objectives. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, was kind enough to widen the horizon a little and make certain suggestions to the effect that in regard to the vexed question of housing finances there might be a higher degree of Party co-operation and

1043
discussion, to which suggestion I gave a sympathetic response so far as was in my power. But I would ask your Lordships to excuse me from making any further speech on this Bill which I think we dealt with adequately on Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Home.)
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, before this Bill, which has been with us for a very short time, leaves us for good, I should like to say briefly that I have no intention of returning to the topic just referred to by the noble Earl which I ventured to put before the House last week, but I should like to tell the House quite plainly why I brought it forward last week. I did so because the discussion on this Bill in another place extended over several months. Apparently the Government thought that that was quite enough and that by no stretch of the imagination could there be much interest in your Lordships' House. So the Bill which had been for several months under discussion in another place, arrived here just a day or two before the present Session ends. If I or any other member interested in Scottish affairs had tried to apply our minds seriously to improving this Bill, it would have been futile, because there would not have been enough time. Even a small Amendment would have necessitated the Bill going back to another place and then coming back here again. So we get to the state where there are no Amendments because, within two days of the end of the Session, there is no point in putting any down; it would be quite impossible to deal with them in the time available.
I wonder whether it ever occurred to the Government that any useful alteration could be made. Perhaps I ought to put it in this way: did it occur to the Government that members of this House might have some useful points to put forward in regard to this legislation, or are we to be regarded just as people of no consequence at all, who come here because we have nothing better to do, no better way that we can think of in which to spend our time? We have been invited to put down Amendments, but we know perfectly well that whatever Amendments are put forward will not receive any attention from the Government. I am not going to
1044
detain the House on this matter. The only point I wish to make is that it has been impossible to alter this Bill under the conditions in which it came to us. When I came to your Lordships' House, it was with the idea that this Chamber had a useful function to perform. I still think so. But I am beginning to be a little doubtful whether that function is so useful when there is in power a Government such as we have at present, which treats the House in this way and apparently does not expect us to make any constructive suggestions at all. It seems that it would be quite suitable to the present Government if noble Lords on this side of the House who were optimistic enough to believe that they could make some constructive suggestions and improvements in regard to legislation, were to take a long vacation and return here after the next General Election.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, whilst I have great sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Morrison has said, I would remind him that it is not so long ago that we had another Government which adopted the same system, particularly with regard to Scottish affairs.
LORD MORRISON: The noble Lord will also remember that when noble Lords on that side of the House were sitting on this side of the House and I was responsible for Scottish affairs, they were not quite so docile as we are now expected to be.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I hardly like to enter into this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has lately been very fertile in suggestions, and, of course, anything which he says we shall certainly take into account very seriously. I was a little taken aback (perhaps I misunderstood him) to hear him urge that the Conservative Government should increase the powers and functions of the House of Lords. If and when we do reach such a point, perhaps we shall consult him.
LORD MORRISON: At any rate, I have always believed that the House of Lords has a useful function to perform, but apparently the present Government has not yet discovered any such thing, except, as my noble friend said yesterday, for us to act as a rubber stamp.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

PRISONS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
AGRICULTURE (POISONOUS SUBSTANCES) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
CINEMATOGRAPH BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
VISITING FORCES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

ARTS COUNCIL POLICY
3.25 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY LORD CALVERLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is expedient to spend such a big proportion of the taxpayers' money on entertainments and exhibitions in London; whether Her Majesty's Government will appoint an appropriate committee to examine the policy of the Arts Council; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to assure your Lordships that I move this Motion in no hostile way, so far as the broad policy of the Arts Council is concerned. I wish also to acknowledge the fact that, under the rules of this House, it is possible for persons in my position who may be interested in what appears to be not a vital matter to ask the indulgence of the House whilst they endeavour to put some point which they think is of interest. At the end of July I put down a Question which was replied to by the noble Viscount the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, asking how much money had been allocated to the Royal Covent Garden Opera Company in the present financial year. In his reply the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said that £240,000 had been allocated from the Arts Council for the current year. He also went on to explain, with regard to
1046
another company which has been in operation in the provinces for seventy-odd years, that a matter of a few thousands had been granted, which on later inquiry I realised was justified, owing to the inaction of this company, which I believe is called Grand Opera Productions, Limited.
I come back to-day not in order to attack but to ask for an explanation from my noble friend (if he will allow me so to call him) Lord Onslow, who will be representing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to ask if he will agree to some sort of committee of inquiry being set up to go into the matter of the administration of the Covent Garden Opera Company. I do so because there has been a rising tide of criticism—I put it no higher than that—of the Arts Council of Great Britain (I want to emphasise the words "of Great Britain") in the way that it has allocated some of the £500,000 which it received from the public purse.
LORD STRABOLGI: Will my noble friend forgive me for interrupting him?— I only wish to help him. His Motion suggests the appointment of a committee to inquire into the policy of the Arts Council, and that is a suggestion with which many noble Lords would no doubt agree. But he has just spoken of a committee to inquire into the activities of the Covent Garden Opera Company. Surely he must mean the Arts Council?
LORD CALVERLEY: I am trying to split up my speech into two parts. One part will relate to the Covent Garden Opera Company, and the second will deal with the Arts Council of Great Britain—not the Arts Council of the West End of London. That is what I want a committee to inquire into, if I can get the Government to agree. There has been criticism in papers of repute of the Covent Garden Opera administration, and it was for that reason that I put down my Question which was answered in July. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has been kind enough to tell us that the people who paid for admission to performances by the Covent Garden Opera Company did not pay entertainment tax; therefore this additional income should, and did, go into the coffers of the Covent Garden Opera Company. I have now been informed,

1047
through the courtesy of the chairman of the Opera Company, my noble friend. Lord Waverley (I did not know until recently that he was the chairman) that in 1951 and 1952 the Covent Garden Opera Company visited five provincial centres. I was shown the relevant records, and I counted up the number of weeks the company was on tour up to the end of October of the present year. I found that out of some ninety-odd weeks of activity it spent about twelve weeks in the provinces. I was delighted to learn that when it visited Liverpool the company's most successful venture was the revival of the opera The Bohemian Girl. Out of a total of sixteen performances which the company gave, The Bohemian Girl was produced on eight occasions. And I believe that Sir Thomas Beecham was kind enough to act as conductor.
I do not, and I am not going to, condemn the Covent Garden Opera Company for accepting any moneys or largesse which comes to it from the Arts Council: I suppose that I should be tempted to do the same. But whilst the Arts Council acts as a fairy godmother to the Covent Garden Opera Company, it is a sort of step-father so far as the rest of the country—England. Scotland and Wales—is concerned. I suggest to your Lordships that when the Royal Charter was granted about ten years ago, it was not intended to provide crutches for an invalid but rather to furnish a handrail to help the Covent Garden Opera Company in its venture, in the hope that it would become a truly national concern, so that the rest of Great Britain could join with the West End of London in enjoying grand opera. We have suffered a deprivation of opportunities for such enjoyment owing to the fact that the Carl Rosa Company has been reduced to a state in which, if it has not actually put up the shutters, it is no longer producing opera and giving performances in the country.
May I digress here to ask the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, whether he would like me to sit down at this point in order that he may make a statement?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that offer, but I think it would be better that he should finish his speech, and hen, if may I may. I will intervene.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I shall be another ten or twelve minutes. I made that suggestion for the convenience of the House, but in view of what the noble Marquess has just said I will get on with my speech and try to finish it expeditiously. I just make the point that the object of the Charter was to keep the patient healthy, even to bring a state of rehabilitation to such a body as the Covent Garden Opera Company and to revitalise it.
The Sadler's Wells Ballet Company is looked upon as a national concern in much the same way, and at the present time it is giving a season in Leeds. It has a smaller orchestra, and, therefore, the performances are not quite so costly. Nevertheless, there was, I note, a balanced orchestra of 32 performers. The company's efforts were described by the Yorkshire Press as:
"An inspired performance by that great institution The Sadler's Wells Ballet Company."
In the set-up of the Arts Council of Great Britain, according to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in this House, it has a committee of fifteen and also a secretary-general. a deputy secretary, an assistant secretary, an art director, a music director, a drama director and a financial officer. Then there are also in London other officers to help those gentlemen whom I have mentioned in their work. A sum of £64,133 is paid in salaries. This includes some payments to subordinates. But the directorate and the executive can draw travelling and subsistence allowances when on official business. No one in his senses would dispute that the secretary-general and the secretary assistants are entitled to legitimate expenses, but I should like to have details of the amounts that they have been receiving as expenses.
We were also told, in the reply to a Non-oral Question on July 31, that there are twelve regions. I naturally concluded that my own county was one of the regions. It was a bit of conceit on my part to think that Yorkshire could be one of the regions; but, hopefully, I went to the telephone book to see if it contained the name of the Arts Council of Great Britain. In bold black letters there it was in the directory. I rang up, but the telephone authorities informed me that the Arts Council had put up the shutters and were no longer in existence

1049
in Yorkshire. I then inquired of the manager of one of Yorkshire's biggest theatres, which is showing the Sadler's Wells Ballet this week and, in the near future, the International Ballet, which, by the way, has no subsidy. He told me that on these occasions, all too few, entertainment tax was not paid to the Inland Revenue but was collected by the management and handed over to the parent body producing the ballet. I suggest to the noble Earl who is to reply that this remittance of entertainment tax, which exists on a wholesale scale, needs looking into or abolishing, altogether, so that it is no longer a grievance to bodies less powerful than the Royal Covent Garden Opera Company and the Sadler's Wells Company. Up to a few years ago, we had in the provinces the National Opera Company, under the leadership of Sir Thomas Beecham. For some time the company was a great success, but as it had neither any subsidy nor any help, other than that given by the local authorities, it came to an untimely end. I am glad to see that amateur opera companies continue to produce such operas as those of Gilbert and Sullivan, and I see that only this week in a little town like Howden an amateur company are to immortalise your Lordships' House by playing Iolanthe.
I also want to point out to your Lordships—and I am hurrying on as quickly as possible—that while the Arts Council of Great Britain (again I want to emphasise "Great Britain") can give exemptions from entertainment duty, a body such as one with which I was personally connected, producing Gilbert and Sullivan and other light operas, had to pay to the Excise authorities the sum of £50 entertainment tax. I took this up with the Treasury and I am glad to say that they said they would give exemption. As a result, that £50 was made into a £100 and given to some very deserving charities for children. A great weekly illustrated paper, famous for its society gossip and for its musical and dramatic criticism, has mentioned that the general manager of nine theatres in London has found in the Articles of Association a way for the Arts Council to give him exemption from entertainment tax, whatever the nature of the play he is putting on. I do not think he is working in any altruistic vein when a skilful barrister has been able to show how a
1050
coach and four can be driven through yet another Act of Parliament. So I would ask Her Majesty's Government either to abolish entertainment lax for the companies I have mentioned or give exemption to everyone.
I could mention other instances which were sent to me some time ago, when I drew your Lordships' attention to another phase of the work of the Arts Council I suggest that the Treasury have been deprived (I will use no harsher term) of considerable income from entertainment tax, and they ought to decide to let everybody share in the benefit. The odd part of it is that the customer does not share in it when he puts his money down at the box office; it goes into the coffers of the company. I hope that does not apply to the Covent Garden Opera Company—I see the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, here.
I should like now to read a statement of policy made by the secretary-general of the Arts Council of Great Britain. Of course he mentions the great population of London, and he goes on to say:
" The Arts Council is welt aware of the troubles afflicting the repertory companies.…"
But since the passing of the 1948 Act, which allowed municipal authorities to levy a 6d. rate, he suggests that instead of the patronage of the Arts Council, they should simply be left "to municipal patronage." The secretary-general goes on to say that this will give greater interest in the provinces
"because a community with a stake in its own orchestra or theatre"—
that is a 6d. rate—
"is all the more likely to recognise its moral responsibility to the diffusion of the arts. The patronage of the town hall is far better than the patronage of Whitehall."
Evidently the secretary-general regards himself as Whitehall or as representing the spirit of Whitehall. That is a "new one on me." We have in the provinces the greatest orchestra in this country, one which was founded by the textile industries in Yorkshire and Lancashire. It still carries on, and does not receive a penny piece of subsidy from the Arts Council.
Moreover, at least nine royal societies of arts, societies of the highest order and possessing charters of their own, have criticised the way in which the Arts Council gives particular attention to one

1051
class of art in the creation of what are called "one-man shows." I believe that the Arts Council received about £300,000 for the Festival of Britain. Most of that was spent at Battersea. They were, in fact, able to afford to have two expert lecturers there in order to explain to the visitors twice a day what these "sermons in stone" meant, because, for the life of them, only a small percentage could understand their message. That not only is my own considered opinion but is the opinion of nine learned societies—ten, if I include the Royal Academy—which went to the Treasury in February of this year to try and see that the visual arts of painting and sculpture were patronised by the Arts Council of Great Britain. I do not know whether anything will be done, but these learned societies, with their hundreds upon hundreds of students—painters and sculptors—must be grounded in the tradition of English, Scottish and Welsh art before they carry into their work what the Arts Council call "experimental art." Let these young people get to know something of the tradition of our painters and sculptors of the past—we have no need to apologise for them—instead of being led astray into trying to understand the jig-saw puzzle of what is called contemporary art.
This is my suggestion. The House of Commons votes the money. Therefore, the House of Commons ought to examine the financial affairs of the Arts Council of Great Britain and of the Covent Garden Opera Company, to see how the money goes in overheads; and a report should be made of their findings. If that is impossible, then I suggest to the Government that a departmental committee of five should be set up. I am ready to nominate the Chairman, who should be the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley (he winces at the suggestion, and quite properly); and I have other names at the back of my mind which I am ready to bring forward, including my own, of people to look into the policy of the Arts Council which, as the secretary-general himself wrote in black and white, is now centred in Whitehall. They try to frighten me, but I do not know what being frightened means, because I have never been afraid of Whitehall. I did not know that the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, was Chairman of the Covent Garden Opera
1052
Company until he told me, I think it was last week, and there is nothing personal or vindictive in what I say. I am a great believer in tradition in drama, in opera and in the visual arts. We are grateful for what the late Lilian Bayliss did, and for what Miss Horniman has done and there are others. The British Arts Council wanted to supervise the Sadler's Wells Opera Company, because they thought that when that company went to New York they would be unable to get anybody to go and see them. But instead they brought back a lot of dollars, and wherever they went they played to crowded houses—and I am proud of them.
Next year there will be the Coronation—a matter which has not escaped your Lordships' notice. I hope the Covent Garden people will give the public who attend their performances cheap seats in the gallery. That is what makes or mars you. That is why politicians talk to the gallery that is where you get your enthusiasm from. It does not come from the foyer of the Covent Garden Theatre, which was severely criticised in the Sunday Observer only a few weeks ago. I am going to be a Philistine. I wish they would put on Edward German's opera Merrie England, if only to allow people to see portrayed in song and verse the name of the man who helped to make Elizabeth I great, the progenitor of the noble Marquess who leads this House. We do not want any of your doleful murders, "frozen mitts," tiny hands, and so forth. We want the Mastersingers to cheer us up a bit. I could mention others to whom we have had the privilege of listening in the past, with no thanks whatever to the Covent Garden Opera Company—Sir Thomas Beecham, the Carl Rosa Opera Company, and similar bodies.
There is going to be money galore (if I can use that expression) in the West End of London next year. Money will be spent in tens of thousands on beautifully gowned women, as it should be. They will be coming along in their thousands to Covent Garden. I suggest that there ought to be a levy on the shopkeepers in the West End, instead of our making the taxpayer pay for the opera. I hope that the Chairman of the Opera Company will not be led astray by putting on some melancholy business which will make us feel even more depressed than

1053
we are at present. I have put this case as well as I possibly could. I trust your Lordships will feel that I have tried to be fairly dispassionate, and, at any rate, I have not brought any venom into what I have said. I beg to move for Papers.

THE CORONATION: TELEVISION POLICY
3.59 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before your Lordships proceed further yith your debate on the noble Lord's Motion, I should like to ask the leave of the House to interrupt business in order to make a statement on behalf of Her Majesty's Government similar to one that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the subject of television in Westminster Abbey on the occasion of the Coronation.
Your Lordships will, I am sure, understand that there are many points connected with the Coronation of which the Prime Minister or the Cabinet are by no means the sole judges. According to precedent and custom, the arrangements are made by the Coronation Corn-mission, which contains representatives of the Commonwealth countries, of all political Pasties in the United Kingdom, and various high functionaries. including the Earl Marshal, who has special hereditary duties. The Chairman is the Duke of Edinburgh. Her Majesty's Government cannot, therefore, accept direct or undue responsibility for the conclusions which are reached, after much careful thought, and which, while preserving the traditions of our ancient Monarchy, have no aim but the public welfare and happiness in the many realms owing allegiance to the Crown.
In principle, all valid proposals are discussed by the Coronation Joint Committee, presided over by the Earl Marshal. It is not practicable for all the members of the Commission to be members of this Committee, but all are consulted, in the sense that they are informed of what the Committee are proposing, and have full opportunity to make comments, before the conclusions are ratified by the Coronation Commission. In the case of the announcement made last week, no comments or dissent had been received from any of the members of the Commission, who had been asked
1054
to make any such observations before, July 21. It is not, therefore, correct to say that the Commission was not consulted on the announcement, which was made in due course by the Earl Marshal.
However, matters of this complex character, with many novel features, may well be reviewed as the event approaches. There is, the Government feel, a broad general opinion, in this country at least—though, as I have said, we accept no personal responsibility for pronouncing—that fuller advantage should be taken of the modern mechanical arrangements now available through television, to enable the many millions of people outside the Abbey to see what is seen by the congregation of notables inside the Abbey. I am speaking of the general congregation and not, of course, of What is seen by the high ecclesiastical dignitaries and State functionaries, whose duties require them to be close to the Sovereign. It is our hope that it will prove possible in practice to carry into effect the principle that the world should see and hear what the congregation in the Abbey see and hear. But the detailed arrangements will involve highly complicated technical problems which may in themselves raise new issues of principle. Certainly it would be unfitting that the whole ceremony, not only in its secular but also in its religious and spiritual aspects, should be presented as if it were a theatrical performance.
The Government feel that it would be for the public advantage if the Coronation Commission were to consider any new report which later knowledge and study permit. the Earl Marshal's Committee to make to them. More than that we are not entitled to say this afternoon. Indeed, it would not be in the public interest that Parliament should become an active debating centre for issues of this character. Above all, it should be made clear that the responsibility rests collectively with the Coronation Commission, one of whose duties it is to ensure that the Queen herself is not brought into any form of controversy on the many points about which it is inevitable that opinions should differ.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, in the absence of my noble Leader, I should like to express my thanks, and the thanks of my colleagues on this side of the House, to the noble Marquess for making the statement which he has just made to your Lordships. I think we shall be

1055
content to leave this matter in the hands of the very representative Coronation Commission and the Earl Marshal's Committee. At the same time, I am sure they will consider the desire of millions of people to participate in some way, by seeing the ceremony or by expressing their loyalty to Her Majesty on an occasion such as this.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the noble Marquess will perhaps be aware that there is some dissatisfaction at the slowness in making certain announcements which affect a great many people, and I do not know whether it is possible for him to make representations in this matter. I refer to the question of dress for those taking part, and also the latest idea that has been canvassed, that the announced route should be altered or lengthened. A good deal has appeared in the newspapers about that matter. These are things which, as I am sure the noble Marquess understands, should be made known as soon as possible, and in which delay may lead to a great deal of inconvenience. I do not know how much of these matters are within his prerogative or the responsibility of the Government, but I believe that it would be convenient for a good many people if, above all, we could hasten announcements on important matters.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I am fully aware of the points which he has raised, and I know that the authorities are also aware of them. I am quite certain that there will be no more delay than can be helped, and, indeed, I hope that on many of these points which the noble Lord has raised it will be possible to make an announcement at a fairly early date.

ARTS COUNCIL POLICY
4.7 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, in continuing the debate initiated by my noble friend behind me, my remarks will not be lengthy, but there are certain matters which have been raised by my noble friend which require further examination. The grievance which he appears to be
1056
voicing is that too much money is spent in subsidising art in the metropolis and not enough in the provinces. I am sure that is the main grievance. Against that, there are certain arguments which I will put as briefly as I can. I think I shall carry most of your Lordships with me, and I hope I shall have the support of the noble Earl who is to reply. First of all, grand opera and, to a certain extent, ballet on the grand scale, must have a centre of tradition and training, and that is always in the capital of a country. All the great Continental countries subsidised grand opera many years before we did, and it was always in the metropolis that the main performances took place. At the same time, I am sure we all sympathise with those people who cannot always get to London and who want to see some of this high art in their own localities. There is one other argument, and that is that the British Museum provides a parallel instance. The British Museum contains much material for scholars, but it must be in some central place, and obviously that place must be London. I think the analogy there is not very wide of the mark.
Now what are the actual facts? I am informed—and I was at pains to get the latest information this morning—that every year eight or nine weeks is utilised for purposes of grand opera by the Covent Garden Opera Company in various cities outside London, and in a year between seventy-two and eighty-one performances are given. With regard to ballet, the Sadler's Wells Ballet Company (who have been under attack by my noble friend) go abroad a good deal, to the great advantage of this country. Our prestige has undoubtedly been enhanced by the visits abroad of the Sadler's Wells Ballet Company. particularly to the United States. If they go for six months to the United States, as they did recently, they cannot spend so much time in the provinces. But when they do not go abroad in any one year for any length of time, then, I understand, about the same proportion of time is given to performances in the provinces by the Sadler's Wells Ballet. Altogether, therefore, a good deal of this money—which is not a very great sum: it is the smallest subsidy paid by any of the leading nations—is spent in the provinces. I do not know whether Bradford

1057
has had its share, but Leeds has; and possibly Manchester, Liverpool, and other great cities.
A NOBLE LORD: And quite right, too.
LORD STRABOLGI: In any event, there is a very healthy artistic life in the provinces. My wife has a house in Essex. We are not very far from a well-known watering place called Southend. I do not know whether the noble Lord knows it, but Southend is largely the resort of that most remarkable race of people, the London Cockneys. They are as individualistic as the people of Yorkshire. In recent years we have had a week of ballet—not the Sadler's Wells ballet but the ballet of Anton Dolin, and Mona Inglesby's company. They are not, perhaps, so famous as the Sadler's Wells opera or ballet but they are excellent. They perform at the largest cinema in Southend; and they do it all without any subsidy or help. It is impossible to get a seat there unless one books for weeks beforehand. I have been to these performances and, looking round the audiences, I should say that nine cut of ten are members of what we call the working class. They are very good audiences and they obviously enjoy and appreciate the beautiful performances of present-day ballet. That, as I say, is being done without any subsidy at all. If there is all this artistic starvation in Yorkshire to which the noble Lord referred, I think the Yorkshire people might go ahead and settle for a period of these ballet performances.
My noble friend wants an inquiry into the administration of the Covent Garden Opera Company, which I understand is not profit-making. I do not know what: the noble Lord's complaint is. I know that it is sometimes said nowadays that. Covent Garden opera is the resort of the very wealthy and fashionable, and that the dress circle is all a-glitter with diamonds and that kind of thing. That, of course, is utter nonsense. It might have been the case when my noble friend was younger and probably went. If he has not been these, he might have gone to the ballet or the opera in the season before lie made this criticism in your Lordships' House. The people do not change into evening dress. I think that that is a pity, but, after all, we have to move with the times. All the seats are always taken, and the audiences con-
1058
sist mostly of young people who are very well-behaved and obviously most appreciative of the magnificent art. The attraction of Covent Garden to opera lovers and ballet lovers from abroad is very great indeed. It is a great national asset; and I believe that the modest sum of money spent by the Treasury in assisting it is among the best-spent money in this country. It yields a great return in education and culture, and I am sorry my noble friend has seen fit to attack it.
4.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord for having raised this topic this afternoon. I think noble Lords will agree that by raising this topic this afternoon he has probably helped to lessen the sense of being a "rubber stamp" which two noble Lords have expressed in the last forty-eight hours. I intend, in my answer to the noble Lord's Motion, as far as I can to stick to the words of the Motion; I think that in his very interesting speech he ranged rather wider than those terms. As we all know, the Arts Council have a very limited sum of money to dispense to the various bodies concerned. The actual figures last year were some £800,000-odd, of which a portion was a non-recurring amount for the Festival of Britain. hey had a very difficult situation to face; and in my opinion—and I think it is the opinion of my colleagues in the Government and of most noble Lords in this House—they are following the right policy in that they are concentrating their resources on the main centres of art in this country as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, instead of scattering those limited resources thinly all over the country and possibly getting very poor, if any, results.
If your Lordships look at the accounts of the Arts Council for the year 1951–52, you will see that approximately 54 per cent. of their income (which is practically all grant-in-aid from the Treasury) was spent on London and the other 46 per cent, on the provinces. These accounts, of course, are quite properly presented, but I find that this very large proportion of the money charged to the London account is for work done by experts who did a lot of that work in lice provinces. It also covers the Sadler's Wells and Covent Garden opera companies and opera and ballet on tour in the provinces. Your

1059
Lordships will therefore agree that we could appropriate a little of that expenditure from the London account to the provincial account and say that London was receiving a good deal less from this limited grant, as compared with the provinces.
Of the total expenditure of the Arts Council's money, the largest item is the £150,000 grant to Covent Garden. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said—and here, I think, although the noble Lord and I do not always agree, we are completely at one—in such a matter as this we must have a focal point. Covent Garden, there is no doubt, is such a focal point. It is a national and, I might almost say, an international centre of our opera and ballet. In comparison with the expenditure by other countries on their national opera houses, our expenditure is very favourable—in fact, we spend a great deal less than many other countries. It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that one of the reasons why Covent Garden needs much of this financial assistance is that what was their original storage and rehearsal space has been condemned by the London County Council from the fire-risk point of view. They are spending money in the region of £50,000 in order to find storage and rehearsal space elsewhere. This, of course, is a very heavy load on their working capital.
The noble Lord, Lord Calverley, raised the question of tax relief. That, of course, has nothing to do with the Arts Council; it is a matter for the Customs and Excise. The only job of the Arts Council, so far as these bodies are concerned, is, after very careful consideration, to allocate out of their funds what they think is correct. My own view is that most of us who have studied this question consider that the Arts Council have done, and are still trying to do, an extraordinarily good job under difficult conditions with very limited sums. Of course, the more money in one form or another that comes into their hands, the more grist it will be to the mill that they are trying to grind.
The noble Lord mentioned the Carl Rosa Opera Company. I think it is the situation there that is largely at the back of his mind, not only in this Motion but in previous Questions. The Arts Council
1060
are in tremendous sympathy with the Carl Rosa Opera Company and realise the great work it has done. But there are certain difficulties. It is a company, and certain negotiations are in progress. I think it would be premature and improper if I were to mention in detail what is going on, because it might prejudice any arrangements that are made. But I can say, quite categorically, that the Arts Council and Her Majesty's Government are in the greatest sympathy with them and want to keep the name of the Carl Rosa Opera Company in the opera houses and theatres of this country. Everything that can humanly be done so that this should happen will be done. I hope that I may be able to make a statement on that matter in the not too distant future, and that your Lordships will not press me on that now, because I feel that it is better to leave these negotiations to go on. Those who know anything about this subject realise how difficult and delicate the situation is, and it should be left until the two bodies have been able to deal with it. The Government feel the greatest sympathy for that company, and anything that can be done will be done. I hope that I have answered the noble Lord sufficiently.
4.23 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said. I wish to emphasise my point. I agree that, owing to the very size of the set-up of the Covent Garden Opera Company, there are only about six places that it can visit. As I said in my previous speech, it spent only twelve weeks in the provinces out of about ninety weeks. Simply because at a place that even the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has heard of—and that is Kingston-upon-Hull—there is not a hall big enough to house the whole of the company, we have to be content that they go to the larger places. I am not bringing up any new matter. I am emphasising the old matter, that we want a touring company, not of such great proportions but able to go to the more important municipal centres and "do their stuff" there.
I also made it plain that the tax remission was possible owing to the way the Articles of Association were drawn up. I did not wish to suggest there is anything discreditable in the opera company accepting what other people accept,

1061
with far less justification. With regard to Sadler's Wells, I think the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was somewhat unfair to me, because I mentioned that we have Sadler's Wells in Yorkshire at this very minute. We have another two or three travelling companies; we have ballet classes and ballets in production, even in my own village of Calverley, in Yorkshire. The Sadler's Wells Ballet Company are doing a great job of work. I said that before and I want to emphasise it. I am grateful to the House for listen-
1062
ing to me so patiently. I think, from what the noble Earl has said, that something will be done. But the fact remains that, with the exception of six centres in the United Kingdom, the country is starved of grand opera at the present time. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past Four o'clock.