Lords Sitting of 20 February 1957

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

THE LORD BISHOP OF ELY
Noel Baring, Lord Bishop of Ely—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.40 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that Lord Killearn has postponed his Motion from to-day until the 28th February next week. I have also to inform your Lordships that, as there are several speakers, it has been arranged through the usual channels, that we shall meet at half-past two to-morrow, instead of at 3 o'clock, in order to get through the Business.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
2.41 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. I have two interests to declare. I ought, in the first place, to say that my first interest is that I am an Honorary Freeman of the City of Liverpool, and in that capacity I have been asked to commend this Bill to your Lordships. I am able to do so after making a very careful study, not only of the Bill but of the needs that it seeks to meet. Your Lordships have had an opportunity, if you desired to do so, of reading the Bill which is a somewhat lengthy document, and I hope that I may be forgiven if I occupy a short time in commending the Bill to you, in view of the fact that, obviously, this is a Bill on which there is some divergence of opinion in this House.
The second reason I want to mention as a reason why I should speak to you to-day is—I do not suppose any of your
1068
Lordships will remember it—that when I was the Minister of Reconstruction I had the honour of introducing to your Lordships a Water Bill that had as its object the provision of a tap in every home in this country. It was a modest request, I think, for a civilised country to make; but obviously it would be impossible to fulfil even that very moderate purpose were the water not first collected; and, moreover, collected in the places where collection is possible. The Corporation of Liverpool have in the past earned great praise for the way in which they have dealt with this problem of water. They have very good water: it is so good that it tempts people to drink it in its natural state, which is more than one can say of a good deal of London water.
The present supplies of water in Liverpool are due to the far-sighted views of our grandfathers, but they did not realise that this area would involve a population of over 1 million people covering not only Liverpool—and this is a point to which I want particularly to draw your Lordships' attention—but the County Boroughs of Bootle and Crosby, many urban and rural districts in Lancashire and the Borough of Chorley. They did not recognise that there was to be quite such a demand. Nor did they realise at that time that the population of Liverpool were going to become increasingly industrialised and, I am glad to say, happily, were going to be increasingly sanitary. They made provision at Lake Vyrnwy, in Montgomeryshire, and at Rivington Pyke, in Lancashire, which is not now adequate. I must mention that along the Rivington and Vyrnwy aqueducts, twenty-four other authorities, in addition to those I have named, depend on the Corporation of Liverpool for supplies of water in bulk; and before long it is anticipated that six other local authorities will make demands on these Liverpool supplies.
Now I come to the whole point of this Bill. The reliable yield from the existing supplies is 61 million gallons of water a day. The average increase in the demand on the Liverpool undertaking since 1945 has been in the neighbourhood of 1 million gallons a day. By September, 1955, the demands made on the City's supply had reached the point which the Ministry of Health had foreshadowed they would reach in 1975. In the year ended March 31, 1956, the average daily demand was

1069
65 million gallons—a demand that could be met only by overdrawing the reservoirs and by obtaining temporary bulk supplies of water from Manchester. Those of your Lordships who have been interested in housing will know that the Liverpool Corporation have made very rapid and praiseworthy strides in municipal hosing estates; and, moreover, as those of your Lordships who have been to Liverpool it recent times will know, they have built large blocks of tenements within easy access of the Dock Road, where so many of the population live. All this modern housing, with its good sanitation, means increasing demands on water supplies, and much more remains to be done. There is much slum clearance to be effected which will make increased demands on sanitation. All this work, together with the development of industrial undertakings, is the reason for this Bill.
I have quoted these figures in order to make it clear that this matter is one of very considerable urgency for the City Council of Liverpool. I beg your Lordships not to postpone this issue. I believe that we in this House cannot contemplate taking a view which would prevent the people of Liverpool from having all the water that they need. We cannot contemplate taking a view that would arrest employment in Liverpool, which depends upon adequate supplies of water, for Liverpool, unhappily, is one of those places that has not shared in the universal employment of recent years. In fact, it has been rather worse off that most places in the country. In view of these statements, I feel that I need not occupy your Lordships' time in urging that you should encourage the Corporation of Liverpool to undertake what I believe to be a fair-sighted proposition.
I am conscious, however, that there has been a good deal of feeling about this scheme. Only a few days ago, I had a letter from a gentleman who asked me how, as a Christian, I could possibly bring myself to support this measure. That indicates a kind of excitement which obviously has nothing very much to do with the problem. A certain amount of emotion has been brought up on this issue—an emotion that has to do not so much with water as with a certain Welsh feeling that this City of Liverpool has
1070
done something wrong. I know that the question has arisen: is this great City of Liverpool, with its tremendous population, coming as a sort of aggressor into the Welsh hills to take possession of treasured heirlooms of the people in this village of Tryweryn. If I have not pronounced that name correctly I hope that noble Lords in this House who are Welsh-speaking will forgive my ignorance.
LORD OGMORE: May I say that there is not such a village. The village is Capel Celyn. The valley is Tryweryn.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: If I may take it that your Lordships understand me, even though I mispronounce the name, perhaps I may proceed. I would just add this to what I have said. I ask those who are feeling distressed about this scheme just to contemplate Lake Vyrnwy, where the Liverpool. Corporation organised an undertaking similar to the one now proposed. Not only did they supply Liverpool with the water but they vastly improved the conditions of the people in the neighbourhood from which the water was drawn. I understand that in this new valley new houses will be built for the people who are dispossessed. New employment will arise for them, not only through the process of building (because that, I understand, will take about ten years) but afterwards in the maintenance work and the afforestation that will follow. The conditions at Vyrnwy, in which the Liverpool Corporation take great pride, I believe to be a complete and practical answer to this wave of emotionalism arising among largo numbers of people who perhaps have never had the opportunity of going to see what the Liverpool Corporation have already done.
Your Lordships will have noticed that a considerable number of people will be making representations to the Select Committee, if this Bill is allowed to go to the Select Committee. That surely is right and proper. I ask your Lordships only to let this Bill be read a second time. Let it go to the Committee as it is, and let this Select Committee do their job, which they are competent to do, without either hindrance or guidance. Then, after the Committee stage, your Lordships will have ample opportunity of making a final judgment it the subsequent stages of the Bill when it comes to your Lordships' House.

1071
My Lords, I have spoken unduly long for such a Bill. I have but one other thing to say. Some 800 acres of not very good land are to be used for this purpose, and people who are now living on that land will be dispossessed. But they will be taken care of. Other advantages will come. This water will be collected; it will be canalised; it will be regulated. Then, as it flows along the river bed into the Dee, the agricultural land in the neighbourhood will not be flooded as it is now, and great advantage will come to the area on that account. I ask that you will give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Woolton.)
2.55 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, as an Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading, to leave out all the words after "That" and to insert "the further consideration of the Bill be postponed until the Committee to be appointed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and for Welsh Affairs 'to advise him on matters connected with the conservation and use of water resources in Wales' submits a report." The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is becoming customary in this House for every one of your Lordships to state his credentials when he intervenes in a debate. I am not altogether sure that it is a good custom: I should have thought that membership of this House was sufficient entitlement to intervene in a debate. But I am quite prepared to follow the custom. I spent over fifty years living on Liverpool water. Forty-four years ago I married a lady from the affected area—from the area from which this water is going to be taken. I have spent a good forty years tramping round this valley; therefore, I think I can speak from both sides.
I am very anxious to disabuse your Lordships' minds of the idea that Wales has declared war on Liverpool. Wales has not done so—not yet. The relationship between Wales and Liverpool has been for generations past most cordial and friendly. Thousands of Liverpudlians have settled in Wales, and some thousands of Welsh people have settled down in Liverpool. I am anxious that this
1072
relationship between Wales and Liverpool should continue. But I want to say, quite frankly, that this Bill is not going to help in that direction.
The noble Earl, Lord Woolton, can speak with some authority for Liverpool, but I am afraid that his references to Wales indicate that he cannot speak with the same authority for Wales. There is nothing more dangerous than to suggest that the opposition in Wales is based on some sentiment—that it comes from volatile Welshmen, excitable Welshmen, enthusiastic Welshmen. That is entirely wrong. It is a misleading idea, and it is exceedingly dangerous. If the Liverpool civic authorities are taking up that attitude, if they think they can brush aside the opposition because they ascribe it to sentiment, excitement and that kind of thing, then they are making a great mistake for which Liverpool may pay dearly. Welshmen are warm-hearted. They are of enthusiastic temperament. They may be demonstrative. There are occasions, however, when their impetuosity may do more harm than good.
A friend of mine recently watched both international rugby matches on television. Wales were defeated in both games—first by England, then by Scotland. My friend said to me: "Do you know; England have never beaten Wales; nor have Scotland. Wales have always beaten themselves. Have you not noticed how those forwards in the pack, when inside the Welsh twenty-five, knowing the impulsiveness of the Welsh, keep the ball dabbling in the pack, in the hope that some Welshman may get off-side in his excitement and that they may score three points from the penalty?" That is quite true. I hope that the Liverpool civic authorities are not trying to deceive themselves by thinking that that is the case with regard to this opposition. This opposition is not based on excitability. It is not based on the fact that Welsh people are enthusiastic and volatile. It is based on something far deeper, far more permanent. The Liverpool authorities will make a very big mistake if they do not recognise that.
I am rather amazed that they have not gone into this matter a little more deeply. It may be that some people in Wales are opposed to the scheme for not very good reasons, but it is the fact that there

1073
has never been such widespread dissatisfaction or resentment concerning a proposal affecting Wales since the days of Disestablishment. Something accounts for that, and it is not simply the excitability of the Welshman. What I want your Lordships to do is to try to find out what is behind this widespread opposition, which exists not only in the affected area but throughout Wales. I agree that the local authorities, when they first approached this matter, might have shown more wisdom. I believe that the clumsiness of the Liverpool authority in the initial stages, nearly two years ago, when they blundered badly in different directions, is much to blame. It is not a nice thing to find somebody trespassing on your ground and telling you that they are there because of something the Liverpool authority are doing.
The local authorities were not consulted. This point needs to be cleared up, because I find here, in the literature sent out by the Promoters of the Bill, this statement:
"The Corporation desire to emphasise that it was only after prolonged and detailed consideration and consultation with local authorities and other bodies concerned that they decided to promote the Tryweryn scheme."
That is either true or not true. The opponents of the Bill say:
"The Welsh people were not told by the Council of its intentions hot were left to infer from reports of engineers at work in Cwm Tryweryn in the Spring of 1955 that something big was afoot. Nothing was heard from Liverpool until it was able to confront Wales in December with the complete scheme …"
There were rumours in the spring, but we heard nothing more until December, until the complete scheme was there. That is not a fair way to treat Wales. I do not suggest that Liverpool is a "big bully," but that is the treatment a bully metes out. I wonder whether the noble Lord can clear up this point. The Promoters speak of "prolonged and detailed consideration and consultation with local authorities." I ask: what local authorities—those affected in Lancashire or those in Wales? The local authorities in Wales inform me that they were not consulted in any shape or form, either in the local area or in the county council area. Can we expect that not to create resentment? It certainly does not help to create a good atmosphere.
I know that there are opponents of the scheme who oppose it because they do not accept what has been done by the Liverpool authority. They think that Liverpool are exaggerating their need for water and minimising the need for water in Wales They are suspicious and uneasy; they doubt what has been said by Liverpool, and one can understand why they are opposed to the Bill. North Wales is not a designated area for employment purposes, but there is need of schemes of work in North Wales. There must be adequate resources in North Wales, otherwise would-be developers will not come into the area. The quantity of water to be taken under this Bill would almost denude North Wales and would certainly leave North Wales much less attractive to would-be developers than it otherwise would be. Industrial development is very necessary in North Wales. There is no part of the United Kingdom where the rate of unemployment is higher than in this area, and we are anxious to have schemes there. We must retain our natural resources in order to attract would-be developers.
Nevertheless, I do not think for a moment that these facts explain entirely the attitude of Wales towards this Bill. For the past two or three generations there has been growing throughout Wales a feeling that her natural resources have for too long been subject to decisions by those on the other side of the border. What should be done with the natural resources of the country has been decided by people outside Wales, who have determined what proportion of natural resources should leave Wales and what should stay in Wales. The Welsh people of to-day are opposed to that state of affairs. They feel that the time has come when the Welsh people ought to have a more decisive voice in the use and disposal of Welsh resources. That is what has roused Wales—this continuous interference with Welsh resources and their use outside Wales, regardless of the consequences to Wales.
I know that it will be suggested by the noble Earl that certain sections of people in Wales are looked upon as fanatics. Make no mistake about it! The people behind this opposition are by no means fanatics. The finest and most respectable section of people in Wales are against this Bill, and for respectable and solid reasons. Every Government

1075
since the war, the Government led by my noble friend Lord Attlee and the Government of to-day, have recognised the need to give to Wales a greater voice in her own affairs. When the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is also the Minister for Welsh Affairs, made his announcement on February 7 regarding the setting up of a Committee to survey the water resources of Wales and decide their future use, he recognised the need for Wales to have a greater voice. That is the reason for the opposition here. Wales to-day is insisting upon having a greater voice in the handling of her own resources. We do not think that that is an unreasonable claim to make, and surely no Member of your Lordships' House would suggest that it is unreasonable. That is the basis of the strong opposition throughout Wales to this Bill.
It may be said that Liverpool has to help to maintain the water supply for a very large population. Of course, she has; and Wales has no objection to Liverpool doing her job. What Wales says is that where the Welsh water should go, and what quantity ought to go, whether inside or outside Wales, is a matter entirely for Wales, and not for anybody outside Wales. If your Lordships deny that, and say that the Welsh people should have no say at all; if you say that this is one big island, you are saying that the disposal of the resources of the area must be left in the hands, in this case, of Liverpool. The position at the moment is that Wales is dissatisfied with the treatment she is getting from this country. I do not know anybody in Wales who believes in the separation of Wales from the United Kingdom, but there are those who think that Home Rule for Wales would be a good thing, would give Wales a free hand with her own resources and a more deciding voice in their use. I do not happen to be one of those who think this. There are those in Scotland, too, who think that Home Rule for Scotland might be a good thing. Meantime, we who are not in favour of Home Rule say that something has to be done to see that this kind of treatment of Welsh resources is ended.
My Amendment refers to an announcement made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
1076
If this area, the biggest catchment area in Wales, is excluded from the survey, it will make a farce of that survey. And let me say that it is creating a suspicion that the announcement was made to appease the opponents of this Bill and to get over this difficult period. Let us be quite clear on this. This is the biggest catchment area anywhere in Wales, and we suspect that what is being said is: "Make sure that this does not go into the survey. Keep it out. Give it to Liverpool in the meantime, before the survey gets under way." The exclusion of this area from that survey would be most unfair.
I have had sufficient experience of committees set up to do jobs of this kind to know that it takes time, and I do not suppose a survey of the water resources of Wales could be done within under a year or two. But we do not have to wait for that. The Minister, in his pronouncement, stated quite clearly that he would set up immediately technical investigations by the Ministry into the water supply of Wales. What prevents him from directing the investigators' attention to this particular area, having them concentrate there for the time being and then report back during this calendar year? That is not an unreasonable request to make: that they should concentrate on this area, and the Committee set up should go into the matter and give a decision on this particular area. If someone were to ask the investigators to go to Tryweryn Valley to look at the proposed scheme regarding the supply of water in the area, and left it to them to say whether it was a reasonable or an unreasonable scheme, they could report to the survey committee and the committee could decide. There would be, at most, I would say, a year's delay.
Those of us who have been members of local authorities know that we always leave a wide margin. When it is said that water is needed in six years, we who have been members of local authorities know that a margin is usually left, because it is known that anything may happen during those six years and it may have to go to seven years. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the Liverpool Corporation could not accommodate us on this issue. Here is a case where a generous gesture would help immensely. What I would ask is that the Liverpool Corporation—I do not know how far the

1077
noble Earl, Lord Woolton, can intervene later and indicate any response from them, because I agree that I placed this on the Order Paper only over the week-end—
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: I have no authority at all.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I see. I do not suppose this was known about in Liverpool until yesterday, and I realise that the Liverpool Corporation are at some disadvantage if they are asked to-day to say whether they can, or cannot, accept the suggestion, because of the announcement made by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. So far as I am concerned, I am not opposed to an adjournment of this debate to give them ample time to examine the proposal made by the Minister to see whether they can agree to some accommodation. What I am anxious to avoid is that this House should simply stand behind the powerful giant in Liverpool and say: "You are right. Never mind what Wales thinks about having a hand in our affairs. We stand behind you." That will not be a good thing for the relationships between North Wales and Liverpool, and I am anxious that the good relations should continue.
A week to-day we had a long and excellent debate on the Oxford traffic problem. I noticed that in that debate twenty of your Lordships took part. I totted up the total ages of those twenty—it was rather a job to find the age of every one—and divided it by twenty, and it came to an average of seventy years and three months. I thought that was rather good going. However, I am sure that the noble Marquess who leads the House will never forget the concluding part of that debate. If ever he had, I will not say an unhappy hour, but a gruelling, it was during that hour, when the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, was insisting that he was going to force the matter to a Division, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, realising that a Division might at that moment mean defeat for the Government, was doing all he could to avoid it. I thought then that it was quite extraordinary that at the end of a debate of that kind we could secure such a good measure of agreement, largely because of the wise and patient intervention of the noble Marquess as the Leader of the House. I know that Oxford is a great city, and so
1078
is Liverpool; but neither of the two cities is any greater than Wales, if as great.
What I want to know, if the Government are going to intervene in this debate, is why they cannot make some effort to secure a greater measure of agreement than we have at the moment. I have no desire to divide the House on this issue, if it can be avoided. But I will be honest: if I thought I could win, I certainly should. However, I realise, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, did last week when he took his stand—he appreciated that he could not win, and therefore prolonged the proceedings until he arrived at a position where he avoided a Division—that the number of noble Lords supporting me may be less than those supporting Liverpool.
I should like to ask whether the Government spokesman, whoever he may be, is in a position to do anything to try to meet the Welsh claim here. Wales has no objection to Liverpool's having water from Wales. As I mentioned earlier, my wife comes from a place called Tanygrisiau, Blaenau Festiniog. There, the valley is in the process of being flooded, and the next time I go to the house from which I was married I shall be in a house at the side of the sea. The county council took no objection there. They were consulted by the electricity authority, in the way they should be consulted on all these questions, and agreement was arrived at. The same county council have been ignored by Liverpool.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: Which is the county council?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The county council is Merioneth, and they have been ignored.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: Would it help the debate if I dealt with that particular issue now?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The noble Earl can do that later.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: The noble Lord would prefer that I do it later? You see, my information is to the contrary.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: That is what I want to have cleared up. I am giving to your Lordships the information that I have,

1079
and I can verify it. The local people involved in this area have been ignored, and it was only at a late stage—here we may find the point of difference—when the scheme had been fully prepared by Liverpool, that it was brought to the notice of the local authorities. That is not the time to do it. In Merioneth, not many miles from Llanuwchllyn, there is a big water scheme for electricity purposes. The same county council, having been consulted in good time, have no objection to that. What has gone wrong here, to some extent, is that Liverpool have delayed taking the action that they should have taken in the initial stages. However, I do not want us to ride off on that. I want it to be kept in mind here that there is a basic objection at the moment throughout Wales to any more taking of their natural resources by authorities outside Wales without the voice of Wales being heard and being a determining factor.
These are my last words. There is a cultural side to this question. There is such a thing as a Welsh way of life. I know that this House will not belittle that type of reference, and I trust that the local authorities will not do so either. You find that way of life more pronounced in these very areas. It is not surprising that the Welsh people feel afraid that they are going to lose that distinctive feature of Welsh life. This is the way to do it. Much of the opposition in the literary classes comes from that angle. Those interested in the National Eisteddfod view things in that way; they are worried about the preservation of the cultural life of Wales, and particularly the Welsh way of living. As I say, there is a Welsh way of life. If anyone doubts that, they can go to the rural areas of Wales. I agree that if you go to Cardiff or Swansea, that may not be so apparent. But this is in the hinterland of Wales, and there is a strong feeling throughout the whole of Wales, especially in the rural areas, that that Welsh way of life will be destroyed by this kind of intervention in the use of
1080
our resources. Whether I shall call for a Division later on or not depends upon the way the debate goes, but for the moment I will move the Amendment.
Amendment moved,
Leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("the further consideration of the Bill be postponed until the Committee to be appointed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and for Welsh Affairs to advise him on matters connected with the conservation and use of water resources in Wales' submits a report.")—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
3.21 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, if I may intervene for a moment, I should explain that it has been found necessary to interrupt the debate on the Liverpool Corporation Bill to enable two statements to be made, as is our common practice, one which the noble Lord, Lord Mills wishes to make and one which I have to make on the remuneration of doctors. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House that we should have the two statements now, and then proceed with the discussion on the Bill. I am sorry if the House was not adequately informed of this. I thought that the news of the two statements had been given to the Opposition. I did not know that they did not know about them.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, the Opposition knew that a statement was to be made, but not at this time. It is unusual for us to have such statements before half-past three, and if we happen to make a statement before another place, perhaps they may have some kind of objection.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In this particular case, my noble friend the Minister of Power is the substantive Minister in this House, and that rule would not apply so strictly as in normal cases.

THE OIL SITUATION
3.23 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): My Lords, I express my regrets if I have disturbed your proceedings, but with the permission of the House I will make a statement on the oil situation.
The measures taken to deal with the severe reduction in petrol and oil supplies have led to an improvement compared with the position in the first weeks of the emergency. It is hoped that this improvement will continue, but this depends upon the restoration of the normal channels of supply. Meanwhile, I should like to express on behalf of the Government our appreciation of the efforts made by the United Sates to help Europe during the present emergency.
The Government have again reviewed the restrictions now in force, with the following results. It remains the Government's intention to remove petrol rationing as soon as practicable, but this depends on the assurance of an adequate and regular flow of supplies, and the possession of a working stock sufficient to ensure proper distribution. The Government think it prudent to proceed on the assumption that a further rationing period will be necessary and to make arrangements accordingly—although these preparations and the issue of new coupons will not prevent an earlier end to rationing should this prove possible. Although a final decision will not be taken until nearer the time, I can say now that we should at least be able to maintain the ration at its present level.
The Government must continue to conserve stocks against the end of rationing, but we appreciate that car owners would like to use their cars to a greater extent at Easter. As the holiday falls just after the end of the current rationing period, arrangements will be made for any coupons unused in the current period to be valid up to the end of April, in addition to the coupons for the new period. This will also apply to coupons held by operators of goods and public service vehicles.
Supplies of fuel oil have improved and the review indicates that restrictions can be limited to their present level throughout April.
1082
The restrictions on gas/diesel oil can now be lightened. As from 1st April next, the cuts will be reduced to 10 per cent., in the case of industry, and 25 per cent. for non-industrial central heating. The restriction of 10 per cent. on agricultural and fishing supplies will be abolished from the same date. Despite these changes, the average saving on gas/diesel will still be of the order of 15 per cent.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is also making preparations for a further rationing period from 8th April. Details will be announced to-morrow, but he has asked me to say that allowance will be made for seasonal changes in normal consumption, particularly in the case of coaches, whose allocation will be increased to 75 per cent. of their normal consumption for the period.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am sure that riot only your Lordships' House but the whole country will welcome the statement that has just been made by the noble Lord, the Minister of Power. Reading not only upon the lines of what he said but between the lines, I trust that I shall not be exaggerating if I say that the new rationing period, which will start after April 17, will carry a larger unit value of petrol than it does now. The motoring community of the country will welcome his statement that, as the Easter holiday starts immediately after April 17, they will be able to use their "banked" coupons—which they are "banking" to a considerable extent—up to the end of April.
May I ask the noble Lord whether lie will seriously consider the congestion that may rake place on the Easter period, because the noble Lord must know, and I am sure he does, that one of his difficulties has arisen because motorists have not used their coupons during the rationing period but have "banked" them at home in an attempt to meet just the position which he has now announced. Would it not ease the position if, at some time towards the end of the present rationing period—either in March or April—the Minister considered increasing the unit value of the present coupon, so as to syphon off some of the unused petrol which, if he will forgive my saying so, is causing a little embarrassment to him at the present time? If he would do that,

1083
I think he would guard against the position which I fear may arise, that on the Thursday before the Easter holiday, and during the Easter holiday, the "banked" coupons may suddenly, if I may use the expression, be cashed in, with the result that there will be a shortage of petrol due to the physical inability of the distribution trade to cope with the rush. I ask him to consider that suggestion, because I think it might help.
Would the noble Lord allow me to ask him two further questions? I saw in The Times to-day—and he made mention of it—that the output of Texas oil has now been authorised up to 210,901 barrels per day. On my calculation, that is over 7 million gallons of crude oil in excess of what it has been, through the increase in the Texas allowables. Would the noble Lord care to tell not only the House but also the country what effect he thinks that will have on the petrol and oil position of this country during the summer months? The noble Lord has said also that he has now increased his guarantee of fuel oil from March until the end of April. Would he care to give industry some indication of what their anticipation of fuel oil may be from now until the end of the year?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestions, which will be carefully considered. I should not like him to assume that it is our intention to increase the unit value of the coupon in the next rationing period. I should rather put it this way: that normal consumption rises very rapidly at that time, and therefore we should hope to be able to distribute more petrol to meet that need; but it depends upon supplies and what the position will look like in a few weeks' time. In any case, I will see that noble Lords and the country are kept informed as we go along. The noble Lord asked about the increase in the Texas allowables. I should like to say that we welcome that decision. We need further supplies of crude oil for our refineries, and hence that decision is a very good one; but, great as the quantity may sound, it is for Europe—we hope it is for Europe—and it represents only about 3 per cent. of Europe's total supplies, so it would by no means close the gap. It would be very welcome and would assist us, but that is just what it is.
1084
In regard to fuel oil, I do not think that there is much more that I can add to my statement. We have to think about next winter. Normally, there is an increase in demand for fuel oil and it is necessary to build up our stocks again to try to steer industry through next winter. That is why perhaps I am being a little cautious on the fuel oil position in announcing month by month, but well in advance, what the position is. I am hopeful that it will be no worse than it is now, but I would ask noble Lords to bear in mind the necessity of building up our stocks to meet the situation next winter.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there is any truth in the statement that oil directed to this country, or which would normally come to this country, is now being re-directed to the Continent of Europe?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, the European situation is looked after by the allocations of O.E.E.C., the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, and there is a reserve made which is allotted to different countries. Normally, the American supplies are shared amongst the European countries and we get the proportion agreed upon in Paris by the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: May I assume that the answer to my question therefore is "Yes"—that oil directed or normally coming to this country is going elsewhere?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, the position is not quite so simple as that. There always has been a flow of oil from this country to other parts of Europe and that practice is, of course, continuing in order to regularise supplies.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? He referred to supplies to the Continent. Would he agree with me that petrol rationing on the Continent practically does not exist? Of course, it is nominally enforced in France, as the noble Lord and anybody would be told, but is he aware that, when you pass large garages outside Paris, you are asked if you would like a little petrol to fill up your tank

1085
and that you can get it without any difficulty at all? May I ask the noble Lord another question? With regard to this Texas oil, am I not correct in assuming that Texas oil is far more volatile than oil from the Middle Eastern countries and that, when you crack it, in order to get your proportion of fuel oil, you also produce considerably more light hydro-carbons, such as ordinary petrol and the like? If, therefore, there is an increase of Texas oil, would it not also lead automatically, when it is cracked, to an increase of petrol?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in answer to the noble Earl, I hope he will not expect me to deal with or criticise what other countries are doing: I can speak only for this country. We are endeavouring to secure an equitable supply of oil to the citizens of this country, having regard to their needs and within the confines of the supplies we have. If other countries are doing something different, I do not think that that should in any way deflect us from our purpose. So far as Texas oil is concerned, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the technical information which he has given me. If we can get their oil to our refineries, it will, of course, add also to our petrol supplies. As to any comparison with other kinds of oil, I can only regret that I am not in a position to make that comparison.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, do we understand, then, that we are not doing anything very special to make sure that, in getting supplies from the United States, we are getting something really adequate for our needs in comparison with what their needs are on the Continent in relation to their stocks? If we can get petrol so much more freely if we travel in France, surely they cannot be in need of the same reinforcements from the United States as we are.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in reply to the noble Viscount, I would rather not be drawn into a discussion about what
1086
is happening in France or in any other country. What they may do may or may not be equitable as among their own citizens. All I can tell your Lordships is that what we are trying to do is to get an equitable distribution here.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the restriction on petrol and other oil in this country is proving a very severe handicap to British commerce vis-à-vis the Continent, and it is very disquieting to think that oil is being diverted from this country to Continental competitors? Is he satisfied that the Government are not unduly over-ensuring the future and penalising the present when, on the evidence, there are ample supplies of oil available for current use, particularly for commerce?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, I think we should be very unwise to use up now such supplies of oil as we have got in order to make certain than we are all right at the moment, and not be concerned with the future. We have endeavoured to arrange the maximum distribution of oil now, having regard to a proper conservation of stocks necessary to enable us to go along, and it is a striking fact that, with all our rationing, people are not consuming anything like the value of the coupons we are sharing out amongst them.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords. I am certain that the noble Lord is right not to be pressed and not to give way on this matter of petrol in other countries. But may I ask him to bear in mind that it is worth taking some slight risk with increased petrol supplies so as to prevent a black market rising to the same extent as it is in some other countries?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we are taking all the risks which we are entitled to take. We are not just playing safe; we are dealing with this job on a business basis, to get the maximum amount of oil which we can safely do into the hands of people who need it.

REMUNERATION OF DOCTORS AND DENTISTS
3.42 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, I rise to make a statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the remuneration of doctors and dentists in the National Health Service and in the employment of local authorities. I will, if the House will allow me, give it in my right honourable friend's own words:
"The House will know that a claim has been submitted for an increase of not less than 24 per cent. in the remuneration of all doctors in the National Health Service. The extra cost to the country would be about £20 million a year. In present circumstances, the Government do not feel able to admit this claim, and representatives of the profession have been so informed.
"This does not mean that the Government have reached any conclusion as to the merits of the claim. Indeed, they have decided that the time is opportune for a full review of medical remuneration through an independent inquiry which would take into account the position of the medical profession in relation to other professional classes in the community, and would suggest how the matter could be kept under review. I have accordingly recommended to The Queen, and Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to approve, that a Royal Commission should be appointed for this purpose.
"Within the last few days a claim, similar to that of the doctors, has been received on behalf of the dental profession, and the dental profession will be included in the review to be conducted by the Royal Commission. The question whether the remuneration of doctors and dentists employed by local authorities should be included in the terms of reference is under consideration. I hope to announce at a later date the names of the Chairman and the members of the Royal Commission, together with the terms of reference."
3.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Marquess the Leader
1088
of the House for making here on behalf of the Government the statement that is now being made by the Prime Minister in another place. I must say that the first impressions of this statement upon me are not very cheerful. Having regard to the long, outstanding application of the great profession of medical men and women to the State service, I feel it is extraordinary that, after this length of time, the question of their remuneration should be referred to a Royal Commission. That is a most extraordinary procedure to adopt. It was only last week that the noble Marquess, in that very difficult hour when he performed so brilliantly at the Box, said how much he deprecated the long delays and the odd form of inquiry which would be brought about by applying a Royal Commission to such a comparatively simple question as the roads in Oxford. Here we are dealing with something which is urgent, outstanding, and necessary to retain the good will of the medical profession in maintaining a great National Service to the people. To me, it seems like cowardice on the part of the Government for them not to deal with, and decide their policy upon, what is an urgent matter. Instead of that, they refer it to a Royal Commission.
There was no such reference to a Royal Commission, no such delay, before the Government made the statement in the other place the other day about the increased costs of welfare milk and the weekly contribution of the worker to the Health Service as there is going to be in regard to the remuneration of the doctors. There was no sort of cowardice or hesitation in referring that matter to a Royal Commission. Those are people of a different type. But here it looks as if the medical profession may be "got at" with a view to putting up with a Royal Commission. Having regard to his former association with the great medical profession, no doubt the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be busy trying to spin the necessary story of glamour to his professional colleagues. I only hope that the country will take as strong and as sincere a view about this sort of thing as I do myself.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, if the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition was asking a supplementary question, it is what I might call a rhetorical question. He referred—I rather expected he would refer to it—

1089
to a debate which took place last week on the Oxford roads, in which the Government rejected the idea of a Royal Commission. The noble Viscount must remember that the circumstances were entirely different in that case, as I explained—or, at least, I hoped I had explained—to the satisfaction of the House. There was in existence under the Town and Country Planning Act alternative machinery which was already in operation, and the fact that it was a very limited question—a limited problem, as the noble Viscount has said—made it easy to use that machinery. This is a very wide and complex question. I would remind the noble Viscount that I said in the statement I have just made
"… the time is opportune for a full review of medical remuneration through an independent inquiry which would take into account the position of the medical profession in relation to other professional classes in the community."
That is, indeed, one of the great problems which has to be faced. It is no good the noble Viscount and others saying that the medical profession can be dealt with entirely in isolation; it cannot be done. This is one of the most complicated questions that exist, as I know from my connections with the research bodies in this country, and it is an eminently suitable question to be dealt with by a body of this kind.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: How long did it take the Government to discover that this was so complicated a question in comparison with others? For months and months this matter has been under discussion with the medical profession, and it has certainly been within the knowledge of the Ministry of Health from the moment that the State scheme was launched. Now, at this stage, when the doctors are in a very poor position—at least, some of them are—in relation to the increasing cost of living, that they should be dealt with by means of a Royal Commission seems to me almost unthinkable. Will the noble Marquess say whether, while the Royal Commission is sitting, any adjustment is going to be made to ease the position of the doctors?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think I cart say something about that. I understand that my right honourable friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland
1090
have told the doctors and dentists that they are willing to agree to the granting of an interim increase to the junior hospital medical and dental staff. This is on the basis that they can justifiably be regarded as underpaid at present. The offer will be negotiated through the established Whitley machinery. It will not be extended beyond this limited class to, for example, the lower-paid general practitioner doctors or dentists; it is meant to apply to those who are in most need at the present time.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, in view of what the noble Marquess the Leader of the House says, and in my view rightly says, about the bearing on research workers, may I take it that consideration of those bearings will be included in the terms of reference of the Royal Commission?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the actual terms of reference I hope to be able to announce later. As I have said, anything which is done with regard to doctors and dentists has a bearing on these wider categories though, obviously, there is a limit even to the subjects with which a Royal Commission can concern itself. But there are categories outside the limits of such terms of reference which have a bearing on the recommendations which such a Commission could make.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for the statement he has made. I must agree that the questions raised by the medical profession have been going on for a long time and I hope that the Royal Commission will now settle them quickly. Secondly, I very much hope that the position of local authority doctors and dentists, which the noble Marquess states is under consideration, will come under the terms of reference of the Royal Commission. We were told during a debate on the Oxford roads that some Royal Commissions could report in six months while others might take six years. This is a matter of some urgency, and I trust that in this case the period will be one of six months and not a longer period.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the period which the Royal Commission will take is a matter for the Commission. Her Majesty's Government

1091
desire, as much as the noble Lord, that it shall be as rapid and efficient as possible in its work. With regard to the other question, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to let him know exactly what will be included within the terms of reference when I am able to do so. I will certainly bear in mind the point that he has made.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, in settling the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, he will consider the advisability of making them wide enough to enable the Royal Commission to compare not only professional earnings as between different professions but professional earnings with non-professional earnings?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords. I have said that there must be some limitation of the terms of reference, even of a Royal Commission.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, on this important matter we should be glad to know the date by which we may have the terms of reference and (although this is a question we may then ask) how long the Royal Commission will sit. This is such an extraordinary announcement that we should be informed of these terms of reference as soon as possible.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that we will let him know as soon as we are in a position to do so.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
3.53 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, if we may now resume the debate on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, I take it that this is no Party matter, and that if it went to a Division I should have to go in the direction which my conscience described as correct. I have no links with either party to the matter under discussion. I have no links with the Welsh, though I admire them for their character, with its great variety, more than some others; and I love their country, and when I can get a holiday I go in that direction. In regard to the
1092
great city of Liverpool, whose great representative has introduced this Bill to-day, anybody must feel that if due regard is to be paid to the interests and long-term future of that powerful conurbation we could not do otherwise than to have a sixty-year programme. But it does not seem to me that there is here due regard for other people's possible requirements. I therefore take advantage of the noble Lord's Amendment to say a few words, though for a different reason.
I do not feel that the present rather laissez faire attitude towards the ever-diminishing water resources in this country should go on. We have come to the culminating point when something should be done. To use the old phrase, somebody must "pull up his socks." By means of the Private Bill procedure, with which I understand Parliament would be unwilling to dispense in objects such as these, a system is sought to be perpetuated which seems to have become inequitable: that the first corner shall be the one who is first served, despite the possibility that a better allocation of water rights might be arrived at if an overall, national view were taken. A kind empire over the northern Welsh valleys has gradually come about, spread by three or four of the most powerful cities, an empire over one of the very few resources of the Welsh—perhaps their most important and potential resource.
Moreover, during the half-century in which that has happened what have those people gained? No increase in employment, no development of road or rail facilities, no capital or large industry attracted. What do the Northern Welsh get?—some diminution of their rate vote, as a result of payments from the promoting city. But may they not also have gained some slight sense of injustice? Else, why this crudescence of national assertion, this emphasis on a Council for Wales and a Minister for Wales? May all this not arise partly from a feeling that they themselves are rather being left behind in contrast with the South, who receive benefits showered on them, as compared with their own meagre lot, rather featureless were it not for their ever-present resource in their history and the songs and poetry of their past?
Finally, I think this Bill asks, like the Dutch, for too much. We are giving

1093
too little in exchange for the benefits received. I do not like the sixty-year period, and I certainly do not like tapping the river watershed of an altogether different river board such as is proposed to be done, tapping the Conway and Serw rivers (though in fact I do not know whether they are rivers or streams) which are already under consideration for producing a much-needed local water scheme. Therefore, I beg to support the Amendment of the noble Lord.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, if I may briefly express the point of view of a Member on the Back Benches, which provide the Select Committees who sit on Bills of this kind, I should like to say how very uncomfortable I should feel, if I were serving on the Committee on this proposed Bill, to know that Her Majesty's Government considered It necessary to have a special Commission of Inquiry into the whole subject of water supplies from Wales and yet not; to have the findings of that Committee to assist me in considering the proposals of the Liverpool Corporation. It seems to me quite illogical to have such an inquiry after, and not before, the Bill.
3.59 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Albemarle has said. If this matter goes to a Division it is certainly not going to be a Party decision, and we should go exactly where we believe is right. In the second place, I should like to say that, while I have listened with a very great deal of sympathy to what he said, I do not think that the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, has adduced are sufficent to influence your Lordships to delay sending this Bill to the Select Committee. I will tell your Lordships why, and I think I can do it best by giving an example. Not many years ago, the Government then in power passed a Water Act. That Water Act laid down certain procedure for public bodies who wished to acquire sources of water. After that Act had been the law of the land for a certain time, a great city jumped into the ring—under the present procedure which the City of Liverpool is now adopting—and tried to acquire a source of water in advance of all other local authorities who were interested in that supply.
1094
That Bill went before a Select Committee, who heard evidence not only from the city which was seeking the source of water but from all other authorities who had only half completed the procedure necessary to acquire a new source of water. The Committee finally decided the case and decided that the Bill should not proceed. They did so partly on one public ground that it was riot right for a city to jump into the ring like that, and try to acquire the only remaining easy source of water ahead of all others when the Act of Parliament had already laid down the proper procedure. Further, on grounds of public policy they felt that it was very doubtful whether the city authority ought to impound the last small spring of unpolluted water in an area of hundreds of square miles.
I put that example before noble Lords opposite. The point is that the Select Committee are in a very different position from that of your Lordships' House at the Committee stage of a Public Bill. The Select Committee can perfectly well consider large questions of public policy and decide upon them, in so far as they may recommend to your Lordships what their finding has been—for, of course, your Lordships have the last word in any case. Therefore, it seems to me that perhaps the noble Lord opposite is not quite wise in trying to stop this Bill at the present moment. The City of Liverpool must run the risk of having taken up this matter at this time when a general inquiry into the water resources of Wales is coming on. I am sure the opposition to the Bill will make a strong point of that, in exactly the same way as the opposition of other local authorities under the recent Act was made known to the Select Committee in the case I have mentioned. The Select Committee will take that sort of thing into consideration.
I should like to add one word especially to Lord Ogmore, in view of his Motion on this matter. I think your Lordships' House is very slow to give instructions to a Select Committee. The Select Committee will shortly read, and will undoubtedly take note of, what has been said in this debate to-day, and will give it their consideration, along with other matters which will come before them. They have full powers in that respect, and they do not need any special directions or any special blinkers.

1095
Next, I would add a word on the general question which has been raised by the noble Earl, Lord Albemarle. I listened with great attention to the eloquent speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, and it seemed to me that he felt that, if he proved the need, he had only to reach out his hand and take the water he needed. I have often thought that we can look ahead and see the day, in a quite measurable and not far distant time, when the great populations of London, the Midlands and Lancashire can demand and acquire and use—and perhaps to some extent waste—all the water which this not particularly dry island can supply. And I have long been of opinion that local authorities, in looking to the needs of their populations for water, must also educate them in the economical use of water. I think that this is a most important subject and one which cannot be taken up too early. Some twenty years ago I recommended to your Lordships' House and to a great Ministry that they should endeavour to induce people to introduce shower baths into their homes, as being far more economical in the use of water than the ordinary type of bath. I was decisively turned down. Your Lordships' House did not sympathise very much with the idea. At any rate, noble Lords opposite poured scorn on it, and the Ministry, so far as I could make out, took the line that shower baths were not genteel while ordinary baths were. Beyond that I could not get. I mention that matter just to show your Lordships that I have long been interested in the subject, and I do not think I need make any apology for pressing it once more upon your Lordships' attention.
4.7 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I hope that I may be permitted to make a few observations, for I have been looking into this matter very carefully. I have read in detail the report of the Liverpool Corporation in connection with the Bill, and I have done my best to weigh up one side with the other. I believe that we are here dealing with an extremely important matter. I was much grieved to hear my noble friend who sits in front of me so fiercely reprobating the English in Wales. I was staggered by the expressions which he used. As a boy, and later as a young man, I spent
1096
a large part of my time in North Wales, at a place near Llandudno. My father had a house there and we all used to go there frequently. Far from there being any sign of feeling such as is now alleged against the English, we were all extremely friendly with the Welsh people, and never before until tonight in this House have I heard such expressions as those used by the noble Lord in front of me when he was describing his own feelings in this matter. I was simply astonished.
Frankly, I do not believe that these feelings are in any way general. I am in constant touch with North Wales at the present time and I know the situation. I have had a great deal of experience of South Wales and I know the situation there, too. I have never heard a dispute raised on any occasion as to the rights of an Englishman to stand up against a Welshman or the rights of a Welshman to go for the same job as an Englishman. I have never heard any evidence of what seem to me to be utterly futile disputes of that kind. I believe that if we proceed on those lines we shall arrive at a deadlock. But I also believe that it may be possible during the course of the debate to arrive at some reasonable proposals as to what we should do to get relations—if they are indeed tortured, as my noble friend seems to suggest—smoothed over and made more humanly normal.
The views which the noble Lord expressed were not very attractive to people like myself who like to live in Wales, as I have done and as I still often do. I think we should feel and believe that we are all brothers living together on these Islands. If we realise and accept that and talk straight to each other, then I am sure we shall get on a great deal better than we have been doing. That is why I am talking now. We have a population of 1,100,000 in Liverpool and a very large number of people in the surrounding area who are going to be given water by this scheme, and I can see nothing but good in that, unless it actually deprives the people living on the land of water which is essential to their own existence. I cannot conceive for one moment that any responsible British Government authority would dream of allowing such an arrangement to exist and continue. We need good feeling in this matter, and my own experience over a long period of

1097
years, both in England and in Wales, is that we always have had this good feeling. I am sorry indeed to hear from my noble friend that there is bad feeling to the extent which he has expressed so eloquently.
When we are considering this matter, I think it is highly desirable that we should have a complete survey of the water resources of Great Britain as a whole, because I believe that larger populations and greater industrial activity are going to come in the next few years, as we are only at the beginning of the application of radium energy to industrial production. I think that we shall have deal with such a matter as water supply on a national basis and make plans with regard to its use, as we have done with regard to other natural resources. But we shall get into great difficulties unless we can work together in a friendly and straightforward way and view these questions with common sense.
The memorandum on the Liverpool water supply, a copy of which was sent to me by the Liverpool authority, indicates the great importance of the work they wish to undertake with regard to the supply of water to Liverpool. I believe that it would be desirable to go further than the period of thirty years contemplated in the Liverpool scheme, and not only have a survey of our water supply on a national scale, but also look ahead for a very long time and plan for something on an even more permanent basis. I hope that we shall get down to business and not indulge in quarrelling and abusing one another. We need to stand together in this matter and I am grieved to know that there is such bitter feeling in some quarters. One of my sisters lives in North Wales and she has never sent an S.O.S. to me for help in arty difficulty of that kind. I just do not believe that there is such a bitter feeling in many places. It may exist in some places, but, thank God! the number of those places is limited.
4.14 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Haden-Guest has said that this debate raises an important matter, and I entirely agree with him and with the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, on the opposite Benches, who took the same point of view. It seems to me that the proper use of the water resources of these
1098
Islands is one of the vital matters with which we shall have to deal as a community within the next few years. The fact that the present Bill to provide for the requirements of the great city of Liverpool and other important county boroughs and corporations in that neighbourhood is before your Lordships' House is good evidence of the importance of this question. I am sure that all noble Lords who know Liverpool will agree with the n able Earl, Lord Woolton, in what he said about the wonderful housing schemes which have been constructed in Liverpool during the period since the First World War, under that great architect, Sir Lancelot Keay. It is a delight for everybody interested in housing to see what has been done there.
In supporting my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, I should not like it to be thought that I do not appreciate the difficulties of the Merseyside people and the importance of meeting their requirements. Surely, all we are asking here is that this matter should be viewed in a wider conspectus; that all the requirements, not only of Merseyside, but also of other areas, should be taken into account as against the resources of Wales, which have not been studied as a whole. I think it is a good thing that at this time the Minister has decided to set up an inquiry. I hope that its work will not be confined to Wales but that other parts of England, and Scotland, too, will be brought in, because this matter has to be looked at in the light of the requirements of the whole country. I would not go so far as my noble friend in emphasising the Welsh interest in this question. I agree with him that Welsh susceptibilities and the actual requirements of the Welsh people are important factors, but they cannot be 100 per cent. After all, Wales is just one part of these Islands.
I think this matter ought to be postponed because I consider that Liverpool is "jumping; the pistol" with this Bill. My noble friend is obviously right in saying that if this catchment area is removed from examination in the survey which is being set up, it will take the largest and most important catchment area in Wales away from the inquiry and substantially destroy its value. The noble Earl, Lord Woolton, said that there were only 800 acres in question. While no doubt that is true in regard to the actual

1099
size of the reservoir which is going to be established, the catchment area in question extends for thousands of acres. It spills right over into the head waters of the Conway Valley. I first looked at this matter as a member of the committee of the National Trust. Some of the most beautiful and valuable lands, from the scenic point of view, were in the head waters of the Conway Valley. This scheme, the reservoirs in regard to which are miles away from the Conway Valley, has been so designed over its long period of thirty years as to bring in the Conway. Those of your Lordships who know the Conway—and most of your Lordships must know it—will know that it is one of the loveliest of all the wonderful rivers we have in the British Isles. When this scheme is put into operation—if it goes through as it stands—it will take so much from the waters of the Conway River that that lovely river will undoubtedly be seriously damaged.
The National Trust are one of the petitioners against this Bill, and certainly they would not be unless they were greatly disturbed so far as this part of the scheme is concerned with the Conway Valley. That is why I emphasise the fact that the whole subject should be looked at. It is not a question only of providing water for the people of Liverpool and Merseyside, but one involving the economic interests as well as the amenity interests of the people of these Islands. It should not be carried on in this way, but should wait until after this investigation, which, if it is pushed on, will not take more than a few months, so that the whole thing can be looked at in the interests of the Islands as a whole, rather than in the interests only of Merseyside.
4.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I am completely impartial on this question, in the sense that am not a denizen of Liverpool, although I was one once, like my noble friend Lord Woolton, and I hold a doctorate of Liverpool University. However, that does not prejudice me one way or the other. I have had some experience of these reservoirs and of their value, and of how great towns suffer from not having them. There are in my own home two large reservoirs, one serving Leeds and the other serving Harrogate. Over and over again I have heard these appeals to put schemes off.
1100
In the last drought I was able to see for myself the damage caused by delay in giving proper water supplies to great towns. Cities like Leeds, which had the benefit of these reservoirs, were all right. But there was Wakefield, which had not got an adequate reservoir because it had been held up, where the people had to draw their water week by week, and, I believe, month by month, from standpipes; then they froze and there was every risk of the most serious epidemics in the town.
As everybody who has been in Government since the war knows, a great many of these things have had to be held up. First of all, developments which would normally have taken place were held up in the war; and then further developments were held up on the grounds of finance. I knew, when I was Minister of Materials, how difficult it was to allocate the materials as between the different plans, and constantly one was appealed to by great cities and by the Ministry of Health asking for more steel, otherwise particular water projects could not be conducted. All these things I have heard canvassed before—remarks similar to those of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, about the Conway River. After all, the Committee before which this proposal will come is quite as competent as a Royal Commission to go into these matters. There must be a little consistency.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble Earl will agree with me that looking at the whole of Wales is a different matter from looking at this small area.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I do not think so. Your Lordships are quite competent people and able to look at the whole of Wales. If you have a Select Committee of this House or another place to look at it, they can very well look at the whole of Wales. We are quite accustomed to looking at the whole world, for that matter. I do not agree in the least. I think it was Walt Whitman who once said—and he was quoted by a noble Lord the other day—"If I am inconsistent, I am consistent." There is a proposal for a Royal Commission, and immediately that is turned down by noble Lords. Then the next day they ask for a Royal Commission. Personally, I am not concerned with Royal Commissions. I think that a Select—Committee after all,

1101
a rose by any other name will smell as sweet—is perfectly competent to go into this question. My sympathy is entirely with the great corporation which wants to give these people a chance of keeping clean and having some water. I think we certainly ought not to oppose this Bill, but let the ordinary process of a Select Committee sift any objections that there may be.
LORD MOYNE: Would the noble Earl agree that there is a certain duplication of effort in having this other special committee doing the same work? I agree that perhaps the Select Committee of this House would do it equally well, but there seems to be a duplication of effort contemplated.
4.27 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE had given notice of his intension, in the event of the Bill being read a second time, to move, That it be an instruct ion to the Committee to whom the Bill may be referred that before authorising the powers sought by the Bill they should satisfy themselves that due consideration has been given to:—

(a) the strong national feeling which exists in Wales against the provisions of the Bill;

(b) the adverse effect which the passage of the Bill will have upon agriculture in and around the Tryweryn Valley;

(c) the probable adverse effect of large projects of the kind proposed in the Bill on water supplies in Wales generally; and

(d) the danger that the passage of the Bill will prevent the creation of a comprehensive development plan for upland Wales.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if I speak now, rather than on my Motion for an instruction, because the situation has changed. materially since February 7, when the Minister in another place made the statement about the inquiry he was going to have made into the water situation in Wales, and especially in the particular area with which we are concerned. Yesterday the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor appeared on the Paper for the first time, and in view of this new situation it may be desirable that I should speak upon what has become the main debate, rather than what might be a subsidiary debate.
I do riot agree with the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, that a Select Committee is the best machinery for dealing with matters of this kind. In my view, this procedure is an anachronism; it is a hangover from the mid-19th century. We are now in the mid-20th century, and this procedure of Select Committees, it seems to me, bears no relation whatsoever to modern needs. I feel that the dwindling resources of Wales, in common with the United Kingdom as a whole, should be the subject of a comprehensive review, survey and planning. It should not be a case of "smash and grab"; of the first authority that thinks of a particular region going in and obtaining a Private Bill and then obtaining the resources of that particular area.
As my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor has rightly said, this must obviously be the view of the Government, otherwise, after this Bill had already been introduced in this House and was on the Table, they would never have made this statement in another place, to which my noble friend has referred. If they did not take this view, if the matter was going to be considered by a Select Committee, then, as has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, what was the point of having an entirely separate inquiry into water resources in the area? Evidently Her Majesty's Government consider that the time has come when these vital resources—not only of Wales, because the same consideration, in my view, applies to other parts of the United Kingdom—should be looked at as a whole, instead of piecemeal and from the point of view of one particular local authority. Strangely enough, the
Liverpool Daily Post (here I should like to pay great tribute to this paper, because I think their handling of this Tryweryn Valley affair has been in accordance with the highest standards of journalism; they have not been in any way other than purely objective, whereas one might have expected them to weigh in on the side of Liverpool), in a leading article on February 11, said this:
"In face of these important developments"
that is, the appointment of the Committee by the Minister—
"how can Live pool possibly proceed with a Tryweryn scheme until we have had the reports of the Committee and of the Government specialists on Welsh needs? Or do Liverpool

1103
intend to make a grab before they can be stopped? If Liverpool proceed now, it will be tantamount to saying that the needs of Liverpool come before the needs of Wales in the matter of using purely Welsh resources. Could anything be more grotesque?"
That is from a Liverpool paper.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: With a circulation in Wales.
LORD OGMORE: I know that the Liverpool Daily Post has a wide circulation, and I presume that a paper with the name of the Liverpool Daily Post does not circulate only in Wales. Surely, it must sell the odd copy in Liverpool.
My second request is that the Select Committee, and the House itself before the Bill gets to Committee (which I hope it will not), should have referred to them the wider aspects of this problem. That is an added reason for the course proposed by my noble friend. He has already said that considerable offence was given in Wales by the way in which this matter had been dealt with by Liverpool. He has instanced the fact that the people of the area were not consulted by Liverpool. Even at a later stage, when the Liverpool Council dealt with this matter, they dealt with it in an extraordinary way. According to the Liverpool Daily Post and their excellent reports, it appears that the only way in which the Bill, or the proposals to have a Bill, were passed through the town meeting was by "rigging" the meeting—that is to say, by giving the officials of the local authority an afternoon off, in consideration of their going to the meeting, and also adjourning the committees of the council to give the members and staff an afternoon off for the same purpose. In fact, the Liverpool Daily Post says that, without the council staff and members of the council, this proposal would never have been passed. I must mention that the language of the leader of the council, in referring to the people of Wales as he did (there is no need for me to take up your Lordships' time with the actual language), was offensive, and was much resented in Wales.
There are alternative schemes for Liverpool, including one known as the East Lancashire Scheme prepared by Mr. J. F. Pownall and, as we have heard to-day from my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, there is the possibility of obtaining water from the
1104
Mersey. But we are not really concerned with those problems. We are concerned mainly with the effect upon the area from which they want to draw their water. This is not a question of Party politics at all, as your Lordships will have seen. There is already the improbable, and even startling, combination in support of this Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, and Mrs. Bessie Braddock. One would have been rather surprised at anything which could have drawn those two together, but there they are.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: I am very honoured.
A NOBLE LORD: Call it common sense!
LORD OGMORE: One can call it anything. Large numbers of eminent people are opposed to this measure, and not only large numbers of individuals but a large number of local authorities in Wales, from South and North Wales, and from East to West, but particularly Glamorgan and Monmouthshire. A large number of trade union branches, including the South Wales Area of the National Union of Mineworkers, religious and cultural organisations, and many others, also oppose it. So my noble friend was quite right in saying that, possibly for the first time since Disestablishment, there has been a great feeling of unanimity in Wales on this particular question. We were once called by the late Lord Lloyd-George of Dwyfor a "nation of quarrelsome nightingales." We may still be nightingales, but on this issue we are not quarrelsome.
One noble Lord opposite has asked what would be the effect of passing the Bill, and that is really why I rose to speak. It is no exaggeration to say that the Welsh people, both at home and abroad, are anxiously waiting for your Lordships' decision—a decision which, if wrongly taken, could have fatal consequences in the days ahead. The first consequence is the submersion of the village of Capel Celyn. The village is to be drowned, together with the chapel, two cemeteries, the post office, the school, houses, and farms. Moreover, roads are to be diverted and a railway line removed—and possibly not replaced. As its name denotes, the village and is life centre around the chapel; and the homes, as it were, cluster round the tabernacle. It may be necessary, in the march of progress, to destroy a community. We on

1105
this side do not say that it is not; but a very strong case must first be made out by those who seek to destroy it. In my view, no such case has been made out by Liverpool.
The second consequence is the effect on agriculture. According to some of the best agricultural experts, and particularly Mr. Moses Griffith, who is a distinguished agriculturist, the consequence would be—I quote from his Report:
"It would disorganise and destroy the economic value of farms which have some of their land on the slopes adjoining the valley, and their best land in the valley from which they produce the bulk of their winter fodder; both corn and hay. Some of the farmers have spent a lot of capital and labour in rehabilitating their farms under the Hill Farming Act, and 4o take away their bottom land would make many of these farms of very little value and uneconomic as farming units … When examining the quality of the soil in the valley, Dr. R. I. Davies, chief soil chemist of Bangor University, and myself, were surprised at the quality of the soil even between 3 ft. and 4 ft. deep—first-class alluvial soil, capable of growing first-class crops and pastures if properly farmed under normal rotations."
Then he says:
"The value of even small areas of land of first-class quality in the valley, can make or mar the value of hill farms. A modicum of such land to produce winter fodder for cattle and good grazing, even for short periods in winter and spring for lambing ewes, is of great value and can make a very great difference to the productivity of such farms."
The effect on the water supplies of the whole region may, of course, be devastating. Water is to be collected not only from the valley and its neighbouring mountains, but also by means of tunnels and leats from waters beyond in Caernarvonshire and Denbighshire. The effect this is likely to have on agriculture, fishing, and so forth, in three, if not four counties, is profound and most disquieting.
Then there is the effect on development. The House will perhaps remember that I had a Motion on forestry which was debated on July l8, 1956. In it, I recounted to the House the serious situation in the reference area of the Welsh Sub-Commission of the Agricultural Land Commission. The area that I mention is south of Tryweryn, and the land is not as good as that in the valley. But, broadly speaking, the conditions and the problems to which I referred in that debate are those of Tryweryn and its neighbourhood. Indeed, whilst the situation is most acute in the upland areas of Mid and North
1106
Wales, the Lowland areas, too, are having a difficult time. The Report of Government Action in Wales and Monmouth shire for the year ending June 30, 1956, says, in paragraph 26:
"The highest rate of unemployment continues to be in North West Wales where, in the counties of Caernarvon, Merioneth and Anglesey, the numbers unemployed, particularly in the winter months, remain well above the average for Wales as a whole."
The position would be very bad indeed, so far as unemployment is concerned, if it were not for constant emigration from Mid- and North Wales to South Wales, to England or overseas.
Whilst there is a need for a comprehensive development plan for upland Wales and its coastal fringe, including a plan for the utilisation of the water resources of the region in the best interests of the region, we cannot regard this Bill as other than a serious blow to such a development plan. The Implementation of such a plan would, of course, depend upon a considerable and adequate supply of water. To lay waste a valley in the heart of Merioneth and to drain off water from a wide region is to make it impossible to develop the economy of the region. I may say that industrial development is a distinct possibility here. All we have heard up to date is of industrial development in Liverpool, a city which has had a great history. We hope it will have a grant future, but one must remember that it has beer against Government policy and, one would have thought, common sense to increase the size of these industrial areas.
In the atomic age this point is of particular importance. We have heard the word "dispersal" mentioned constantly, and, of course, it has a commonsense basis. Now, we come into the atomic age with a "horse and buggy" system—for that is what this system of proceeding is. We have come into the age of nuclear fission. The Central Electricity Authority has surveyed a number of sites on the West Coast of Wales and there is a distinct likelihood that on the coast of Merioneth, the county in which Tryweryn is situate, an atomic power station will be built in the quite near future; and, in addition, at a later date, it is quite possible that there may also be an atomic research station built on the coast of Merioneth to supplement Harwell. All these developments and the

1107
other developments to which they will give rise—other industrial projects which will be fed by these atomic stations—will need abundant water and if this water is removed by Liverpool, then there can be no possibility of development on the lines which I have indicated.
Finally, there is the consequence to Welsh culture. This, I presume, was what the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, was referring to when he talked about sentiment. On the word "sentiment", may I say that there is no reason why people should be so scornful of sentiment. I confess that I am sentimental towards my own country and towards many other things—towards my school, for instance which is an English school. I am sentimental about many other things, and so are many of your Lordships. There is nothing shameful about being sentimental. "Sentimentalism" can be another word for patriotism. If it is somebody you do not like or somebody who is using an emotion which you do not particularly want, you call it "sentimentalism." If it is some emotion of which you approve, you call it "patriotism." It is just a question of nomenclature. In this case, I confess that many of us feel sentimental. Another way of expressing it may be "regard for the culture of Wales." Whatever you like to call it, I admit that we feel that way.
When I was considering this matter, as I myself am not an expert agriculturist I went to one of the foremost English experts, a chartered surveyor, whose firm handles possibly more land than almost any other in England, but not in Wales. I asked him to look at the agricultural position and Mr. Moses Griffith's report on it and to give me his views, which he did, and he confirmed broadly Mr. Moses Griffith's report. After discussing the agricultural position, my English friend said to me: "You are going to be able to explain the agricultural, water and development situations. But how are you going to explain the cultural position to the English people? How are you going to explain the intangibles, the effect on Welsh culture and the Welsh language of this flooding of a part of Wales which has always been at the root of Welsh culture and the Welsh language?"
I do not know how to explain it except to assure your Lordships that the consequence to the Welsh people of the loss
1108
of their culture in this vital part of their country is of the utmost importance to them and is of quite as great importance as the agricultural, water or development considerations which I have mentioned. We come of an ancient race, we speak an ancient tongue. Our traditions are very dear to us, our culture is very near to our hearts. We want to continue to cherish our traditions, to husband our resources and to develop our culture.
4.46 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I hesitated much before intervening in the debate to-day and I felt that in many ways it would be better if I did not, but I feel that it would be right if it were made plain that not all of your Lordships who live in Wales are in agreement with the noble Lords opposite who have put the case against this Bill. I thought, as I say, that perhaps it would be better if I were not here this afternoon. When I said that to a noble Lord next to whom I was sitting at lunch, and asked him, because he is a distinguished physician, whether he could give me some pill to remove myself for six hours this afternoon, he remarked—and your Lordships, having heard me, will no doubt agree with him—"Why limit it to six hours?" Many points have been raised this afternoon. I should like to say at the outset that, frankly, I deplore the whole of this procedure. It is customary, we all know, for Private Bills to be referred to Select Committees. I agree at once that what has been done to-day is perfectly permissible—of course it is—but it is not customary, and it may be that we are justified in asking why there is this departure from custom. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, indeed was very scornful about Select Committees. He said they were an anachronism.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am not scornful about Select Committees as a whole. I do not know why the noble Lord should use the word "scornful." I think the time has passed when Select Committees should have to deal with Private Bills on these matters. It is the Private Bills to which I object on these particular matters which, in my view, are matters for the Government and for the people as a whole, not for Private Bills.
LORD MERTHYR: I fully understand. I wish the noble Lord had been sitting

1109
with me on a Select Committee last year on another Water Bill, which sat in this House for twenty-three full working days, I ask him what would happen if the whole of that business was transferred to the Floor of this House, with every Private Bill that came before the House.
LORD OGMORE: No; the noble Lord has not got my meaning. I do not think there should be Private Bills at all on this question. I think that the Private Bill procedure is an anachronism; that there should not be such a thing. There should be a national water scheme which would embrace these water matters as a whole in the national interest and not piecemeal. That is what I mean.
LORD MERTHYR: As I say, many subjects have been touched upon: proof of need of the water for Liverpool; alternative sources from which Liverpool could get water; the damage, which nobody denies, to the agriculture of the valley. Those are three examples, to my mind, which are essentially matters for a small body and not for a large one—I would suggest a Select Committee, not even a Royal Commission. There are many other matters that, in my view, should not be raised now. If a debate is necessary on these issues—and they are important and interesting—I would suggest that it should be rather on Third Reading than on Second Reading, because by then we should know the Select Committee's verdict upon the Bill. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, who asked—and I entirely agree with him, though I may be on a slightly different point—how can your Lordships expect Members to give up their time, day after day, hearing evidence on Select Committees, when all these matters are going to be threshed out on the Floor of the House as well? I think it is a matter for consideration.
It is no good mincing words about this question. After the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor and Lord Ogmore, there is no doubt that the proper consideration of these matters is altogether confused—let me put it quite frankly—by Welsh nationalism. If I may respectfully say so, I have a great personal admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, and that, I am afraid, makes it all the more difficult for me to say that I do not agree with what he said this afternoon. He
1110
talked about emotion, and so forth. There is no question at all but that if your Lordships had lived, as I have lived, in Wales, all my life, and read the press of Wales you would agree with me that this is a wave of emotion, fanned by the local press, which I do not hesitate to say has done a great deal of harm to Wales. My Lords, if Liverpool and Tryweryn were either both in England or both in Wales, none of us would be here discussing this subject this afternoon.
Much has been said about exploitation. I have read the "Case against this Bill" and, curiously enough, I have not read or heard one single word of the Liverpool case. They say that Wales wants this water. Why have they not taken it? They say that they want it for industry. For what industry? This place, Tryweryn, is either just in or just out of the National Park. Suppose an industry is set up in this region, or anywhere on the coast of Merioneth, which is all in the National Park, what would be said? Would there not be the most violent opposition to the desecration of the beautiful countryside? The National Parks Commission, the National Trust, everybody, would be here to oppose it, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley leading the front rank.
LORD CHORLEY: There are lots of areas which I have mentioned in my speech, and the National Trust is, in fact, one of the opponents of this Bill.
LORD MERTHYR: Exactly, and it would be against the setting up in this area of any industrial works, or any factory or anything of the kind.
LORD CHORLEY: Two wrongs do not make a right.
LORD MERTHYR: The same people would be here opposing the setting up of anything like an atomic power station in this area as are here opposing this Bill this afternoon. It is said that this area is industrially underdeveloped. Quite so. Thank goodness, there are still areas in this country that are! Now we are told that of all, the areas in Britain these counties have the highest percentage of unemployment. I accept that. But why is there unemployment? It is natural that an area which has but few minerals (the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor will hasten to correct me over that if I am wrong) but which has

1111
wonderful scenery, should not be an industrial area. I am afraid I must again be candid and say, I think truthfully, that when people are asked to transfer large industries and factories to this area they will take into account the reasons against doing so as well as the reasons for. Let us be candid about it. One of the reasons against their doing so is bilingualism—the fact that the children of all the workers will have to learn two languages, not one, and be taught in Welsh and not in English. I know that is a dangerous subject but it is just as well to face it.
I come to finance. Curiously enough, little has been said this afternoon on the financial aspect of this matter, but in the "Case against the Bill" which has been sent out to a number of people much is said about it. Is this water going to be paid for properly? We can base the answer to that on the question, is the water already taken by Liverpool and by Birmingham from Wales paid for reasonably? I take these figures from the "Case against the Bill," so I presume they are right. Lake Vyrnwy already supplies Liverpool, and one-half of the rateable value of the rural district of Llanfyllin and one-sixth of the rateable value of the county of Montgomery come from Lake Vyrnwy—that was before the recent revaluation.
Take the case of Radnor, which is even more strong. Radnor supplies the whole of Birmingham with water. I have studied the rateable values per head of population of every county in Wales. With one exception, the highest, that of Flint, is £6 0s. 1d., if I have worked it out rightly. The exception is the county of Radnor, the smallest county in Wales, where it is £10 1s. 9d. Why? Let us break it down a little. In the rural district of Rhayader, in Radnor, before revaluation, 90 per cent. of the rateable value of the whole rural district came from the Birmingham water works, and 53 per cent. of the whole of the rateable value of the county of Radnor came from the Birmingham water works. If the Welsh nationalists had succeeded, as they tried to do, in blowing up the pipeline to Birmingham it would have been a financial disaster for the county of Radnor.
May I just trouble your Lordships with a few examples of the opponents' arguments?
1112
Wales should sell water in bulk, so it is said. Why not? I have no objection to that. Why do they not do it? They say that Liverpool can get water from a nearer source. But they say also, a few lines further down, that it "is poorer quality and more costly." Then why should Liverpool take the poorer and more expensive water instead of the better and cheaper water? The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has touched upon agriculture. He quoted the fact that the pasture is, as everybody admits, inferior, but it is easy to improve. This is what the "Case against the Bill" says:
"It is capable of growing first-class crops if properly farmed."
I repeat "if properly farmed." Why should it not be properly farmed? Why has it not been properly farmed?
LORD OGMORE: Who said that?
LORD MERTHYR: This is a quotation. As it seems to me, these things are never thought of in these areas until somebody comes along to take the land; then they are all thought of. I am sorry, but I am bound to say that I think the opposition to this Bill—although I admit straight away that there is a case against the Bill; of course there is, and I hope the Select Committee will hear it—is in the nature of the old story, of the dog in the manger: "We will not let you have this water, but we are not going to do anything with it ourselves." It is true that there have been a few last-minute ideas about an atomic power station on the coast. I may be wrong about this, but I thought that atomic stations were put on the coast because they use sea-water.
My Lords, if there is one thing which, to my own mind, emerges from this debate—I know it is a dangerous thing to say—if there is one thing it is obvious to me (and I speak in an entirely non-political way) should be done, it is that water should be nationalised for the whole of Britain—not for Wales only, not for England only, but for the whole of Britain. It seems to me to be crying out aloud at the top of any Party's list of things to be nationalised.
LORD OGMORE: Hear, hear!
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I say that with some feeling, as one who has sat on Select Committees on quite a

1113
number of Water Bills. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said that Liverpool were "jumping the gun". Maybe they are, but does that not apply to every other Promoter of every other Water Bill that has ever been before this House? The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, said that this matter has been left in the hands of Liverpool Corporation. With great respect to the noble Lord, it has not; it has been left in the hands of Parliament. And in my view that is the right place, and where it should be, for it is the Parliament, not of England, as so many Welsh Nationalists keep asserting, but of the United Kingdom.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I do not want to quibble over words, but I think it was quite obvious that I had in mind the comparison between Tryweryn and Liverpool. It was Liverpool who took the matter into their own hands without any consultation at all with anybody in the area.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I am sorry but I must join issue with the noble Lord. He said a moment ago that Liverpool had decided the issue, but it is Parliament which decides the issue.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Ultimately, of course, it is Parliament which decides, but I meant up till now.
LORD MERTHYR: The noble Lord says that Wales was not told. I can only assert that that is the common experience of all landowners. They are never told; they are always the last to hear. The noble Lord said that action had been taken without the voice of Wales being heard. With great respect, the voice of Wales can and will be heard in Parliament, which is the Parliament of Wales, as well as of England.
I believe that I have covered most of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. He mentioned the valley of Tryweryn. I have the greatest sympathy with those who live in that valley. I do not happen to know it, or them, but it is the same picture as we have seen so often before, of valleys being submerged in England, Wales and every other country. It is done for the public good. In my humble opinion, it may be
1114
that, after proper consultation, it would be the right thing to do it this time, for the public good. On the other hand, it may not be, and that is a question which I hope the Select Committee will determine. I apologise to the House for saying these things at this hour of the day, but I felt it right that it should not go abroad that everyone in Wales was of one mind on this issue.
5.5 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, may I say a brief word on the controversy raging in this House at the moment? I am concerned about how I am going to be able to vote on these three propositions—Second Reading, the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor and the Motion of my noble friend Lord Ogmore. I do not want to be responsible for delay in supplying a great city like Liverpool with an adequate supply of water; therefore I am inclined to support the idea of giving a Second Reading to the Bill that is before the House. But I think the points which my noble friend Lord Ogmore sets out in his Motion are so important that they deserve to be emphasised by this House, to the Select Committee to whom the Bill will go; and if I have the opportunity I shall not e for the noble Lord's Motion.
5.6 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I intervene briefly, not on the merits but on procedure. First, I that this is a Bill in seven the Amendment of the noble Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, to, then, of course, the whole fall.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENEYSGOR: It would be postponed.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, in effect, it would be finished for this Session. The noble Lord, in his Amendment, is concerned only with Parts II and III. It may be that it would not be worth the Promoters' while to go on with the Bill without those Parts; but I do suggest that they might well be given a chance to do so. They must hold public meetings before they come to Parliament with a Bill, and it is quite expensive to do so. They have had to do that once, and

1115
would have to do it all over again. I suggest that that is a consideration which might be borne in mind. The noble Lord could put his Amendment in the form of an instruction, without going against the Second Reading of the Bill. I am not going to be disingenuous enough to say that I feel I should be able to support that Motion, but that is something which could be done without killing the whole Bill.
It is, of course, very unusual not to give a Private Bill a Second Reading. Opinions on this Bill are very strong and very divided, and it is extraordinarily difficult to deal, on the Floor of the House, with matters that may be discussed for days and days in a Select Committee, with evidence before them. What we generally wish to do, I believe, is to let the Bill go forward to a Select Committee. There is nothing final in what we do to-day. We can discuss it all again on Third Reading, in the light of the Report of the Select Committee—if the matter is allowed to go to a Select Committee.
On Lord Ogmore's Motion that instructions be given to the Committee, I would point out that most of the matters dealt with are matters that will in any event come before the Select Committee—if it sits—by means of Petitions which are brought against the Bill; and there they will be very much considered. It is possible, though not usual, for this House to give instructions to Select Committees. I should hope that this debate would have brought before any Select Committee all the points about Wales which can possibly be raised, and also that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, would perhaps submit a report showing the possible effect of the proposals on agricultural production. Those will be matters before the Select Committee. I hope that the Bill will be allowed to have a Second Reading.
5.9 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the House has had a long discussion on this important Bill, and it seems to me appropriate that at this stage I should endeavour to give the House, as briefly as possible, the views which Her Majesty's Government hold on the Amendment moved this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of
1116
Gwaenysgor. I have been informed that it is normal for a Private Bill to receive a Second Reading at the hands of your Lordships, and Her Majesty's Government see no reason whatever why, on the present occasion, the House should depart from this practice. We believe that the Bill should be examined by a Select Committee, according to the procedure which has been followed for many years, at which, we know full well, all parties can be heard. Now, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, suggests that further consideration of the Bill should be postponed until the Committee to be appointed by my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has reported to him on the use of water resources in Wales.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: No—in this area.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: In this area. Well, I think the argument would be the same. The survey which is to be undertaken is one that is bound to occupy a considerable time. The Report will then be presented and will be considered by an Advisory Committee which, as noble Lords know, is also to be set up, as was announced at the same time by my right honourable friend. Surely, it is obvious that if the House agreed to this Amendment the Bill would not be able to proceed further this Session—and there is considerable doubt whether, in fact, it could proceed next Session either.
Having considered all the points which can be brought up in favour of postponement, we feel that it would be wrong to postpone the Bill now without the Promoters having had a chance to argue their case in detail. I feel very strongly that if your Lordships should accept the Amendment on the Order Paper, then surely you would be accused—and, I believe, rightly accused—of having prejudged the issue without having heard any of the detailed arguments for or against the Bill. And from what we have heard this afternoon, there must be some considerable arguments put up to the Select Committee, because feelings certainly seemed at one moment to be running fairly high. Noble Lords who have served on these Select Committees will be well aware that counsel for the Promoters and the opponents of the Bill

1117
will be able to appear, and I have no doubt that the questions raised by the noble Lord's Amendment will be taken into consideration.
I would support the observations which were made to the House by the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, a few minutes ago. I should also like to remind the House that further discussions can take place, if necessary, on the Third Reading of this Bill, when your Lordships will have had the benefit of seeing the Select Committee's Report. In these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government and my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government believe that the Bill should now be given a Second Reading, and I would sincerely ask the House to agree with the course which we are anxious to follow.
5.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl who has just spoken. In commending this Bill, I was speaking as an individual, without having had any consultation with the Government as to what they wanted to do. I have commended the Bill to your Lordships on its merits and on the grounds of its urgency. I should much regret if any lack of advocacy on my part were to cause you to be led, as I think, astray by the great eloquence which you have heard from the other side of the House. But I would suggest to your Lordships that Lord Ogmore made the best case that could be made for sending this Bill to a Select Committee, because he brought forward all those technical arguments, supported by a small amount of evidence. But your Lordships did not have—as the Select Committee will have—the opportunity of hearing the arguments or, the other side. Surely we have been wise in the past to let these highly controversial matters he discussed in controversial places, when examination and cross-examination can take place, and when learned counsel can put forward the various cases. I hope your Lordships will see that this Bill has that opportunity.
There is one thing I should like to say in regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, said. He raised the question of consultation. When do you begin to consult? Before you know what you are going to do, or want to do, or afterwards? That was the issue which the noble Lord raised. He was not
1118
attempting, I know, to mislead your Lordships, because he carefully made the point that people went and looked at this place without consulting the people in the neighbourhood. Do you not do that? Is not that the way in which these matters do proceed? Do you not go and look to see what sort of a place it is and what sort of conditions exist, before you go any further and ascertain whether it would be agreeable to the people there to allow you to proceed? But the Liverpool City Council, according to my brief, having done all that, then consulted ten local authorities, twenty-three rural district councils and other corporations, and authorities, Is there really a case to be made out for delaying this Bill because there was inadequate consultation?
May I not submit to your Lordships that you should look at the Bill for the work which it is going to do? It is a Bill to bring much-needed water to over 1 million people, and to provide that that water shall be put into reservoirs, shall be canalised and used for the people in the neighbourhood, if the people in the neighbourhood subsequently want it. There is nothing but gain to be obtained as the result of this project. I hope that your Lordships will just take note of one final figure. At present, this huge population of North Merseyside has a supply of water of 61 million gallons a day, at the maximum. A supply of 65 million gallons a day is called for. Can you think that the Liverpool Corporation are wrong in taking steps now to see where they can get sufficient water from and at as early a date as possible? As for the question that they are "jumping the gun," I will only say that while I myself have always been in favour of a spirit of adventure, they will not get very far in "jumping" with a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. So I beg your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading, and to trust the Select Committee to do the analysis that is proper for them to do, and, subsequently, to report their judgment to us, in order that e may come to a final decision on the matter.
5.19 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, with your permission. I should like to say a few further words. First, on the consultation aspect. Since I last spoke, I have received

1119
—and it has been unsolicited—a note on behalf of the Merioneth County Council. The note states:
"The Liverpool surveyors went into the valley for survey without applying even for planning permission from the County Council, which, under planning regulations, they are supposed to do. Application was not made by Liverpool until we found them there after a month's operation."
If that is called the right method of consultation on an issue like this, then I am amazed. I am told by the Lord Chairman of Committees that the procedure we suggest to-day is very unusual. But we are in a very unusual position in regard to this matter. While this Bill was before this House, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is also the Minister for Welsh Affairs, made an announcement in another place that he was setting up a Committee to go into the question of the conservation and use of water in Wales. The catchment area concerned is the biggest in Wales, but it is to be excluded from this investigation.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is wrong. I think it is to be excluded from consideration by the Select Committee, but it certainly will not be excluded from the Minister's Report on the investigation of water supply in Wales. It will be taken into consideration, and no doubt the argument that the noble Lord has employed will be used by the opponents of the Bill, if the Bill goes to a Select Committee.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: What does that mean? All the water now going from Wales to Birmingham and other cities, and all the dams in Wales, will be considered but the main intention is to consider the water not allocated anywhere at the moment. That is why we on this side are concerned about the exclusion from the survey of this tremendous quantity of water. We have been told that a lot of money is being spent. That is the trouble. Liverpool have gone on and on, like a giant, insisting and believing that they will have their way later on. I should not have considered putting down this Amendment but for the fact that a Committee is being set up. We are told that we cannot have their Report this year as regards this specific area, and I ask for a postponement of the Second Reading—I do not
1120
ask for the rejection of the Bill. We are told that if it were postponed, it could not come forward this Session. That may be; but in justice to those concerned and in fair play to Welsh water resources, we think that this Bill ought to be postponed until after the Committee have reported on this particular area.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, Lord Woolton, a question? Did I understand him to say that if Liverpool builds this reservoir, water will still be available for this locality in Wales?
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: My Lords, I said that quite definitely, under instructions.
On Question, Amendment negatived:
Bill read 2a.
5.26 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as I indicated to your Lordships in the debate on my noble friend's Amendment, I then said most of what I wanted to say and I do not propose to go at length into any further argument. I understand that an instruction is a proper Parliamentary procedure. Whether it is advisable or not is a matter of opinion. If one strongly objects to anything, then all proper Parliamentary procedures are advisable for those who take advantage of them. As I have already said, I do not think that this sort of Bill should go to a Select Committee at all. I do not think that this matter should be the subject of a Private Bill. I have the greatest confidence in the Select Committees of this House—no Member of your Lordships' House has greater confidence in them than I have—but, for the reasons which I have given, I do not believe that this procedure should be followed in these days. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has stated that he is a believer in the nationalisation of our water resources and that the proper way of dealing with this question is by a comprehensive national scheme. That is exactly what I said and what I say now, and it is because of the desirability of a comprehensive plan for the water resources of Wales that I have put down this instruction.
Your Lordships have heard what I said on my noble friend's Amendment and have read the four paragraphs of the instruction which I have put down on the Order Paper. The Lord Chairman

1121
of Committees suggested to my noble friend that he should have put his Amendment in the form of an instruction; there fore, I presume that in his mind this is a reasonable, logical and proper method of dealing with questions on Private Bills. The Lord Chairman of Committees also said that good had been done by this debate, because all these questions had been ventilated and brought to the attention of the Committee, who no doubt would take notice of them, and that the. Minister of Agriculture might well submit a report on the agricultural aspects of this scheme. We feel that we have done much good in bringing this matter before Parliament. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will not feel that we on this side in any way wish to derogate from the power and responsibility of Parliament. We think that Parliament should have the last word, and as Parliamentarians we have felt it our duty to bring before Parliament certain considerations we wish the Committee to have in mind in their assessment of the important matters affected by this scheme. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill may be referred that before authorising the powers sought by the Bill they should satisfy themselves that due consideration has been given to:—

(a) the strong national feeling which exists in Wales against the provisions of the Bill;

(b) the adverse effect which the passage of the Bill will have upon agriculture in and around the Tryweryn Valley;

(c) the probable adverse effect of large projects of the kind proposed in the Bill on water supplies in Wales generally; and

(d) the danger that the passage of the Bill will prevent the creation of a comprehensive development plan for upland Wales.—(Lord Ogmore.)

LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I rise merely to ask the noble Lord one question. He agrees about what we call the nationalisation of water, though I should prefer the word "unification"; but would he agree that it should be on the basis of the whole of this Island and not for Wales alone?
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, certainly I would agree entirely on that. I think that it should be done in the same way as it has peen done in the case of coal, electricity and gas. But it is equally important, I think, that schemes like the Tryweryn scheme should not go forward in view of the fact that we need a nationalisation plan for the country as a whole.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I have always thought that there is everything to be said for being a Scotsman, and I think that the debate this afternoon has confirmed that in my mind. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has moved a Motion instructing the Select Committee in certain respects, and I rise, not on the merits of the Bill, but purely on the question of procedure. This House has a well-known and well-tried procedure for dealing with Bills of this kind. A Select Committee is set up which is composed of noble Lords of unquestioned ability, before whom every aspect of a case can be argued and before whom counsel on either side can argue the case if necessary. In such cases as this, I think your Lordships' house would naturally be very reluctant to instruct the Committee to take into account matters which they would take into account as a matter of course in their proceedings.
I think that the Government's advice must be that in this case instructions would be undesirable and unnecessary on the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press his Motion for instructions to the Select Committee. Your Lordships have been able to pronounce upon the Bill on Second Reading and we shall have an opportunity again on Third Reading of discussing the merits of the case. The Select Committee will be competent and qualified, and all questions can be thoroughly considered by them. After the full debate we have had on the merits of the case, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will not press his Motion.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, in view of what the noble Earl has said, I will not press it on this occasion. We have had a full debate on the matter, and my noble friend Lord Macdonald of

1123
Gwaenysgor and I are grateful to all noble Lords in all parts of the House for the patient consideration they have given to it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill referred to a Select Committee.

NOISE FROM R.A.F. AIRCRAFT
5.31 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: 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 action they propose to take following the receipt of a petition of protest from inhabitants of the village of Shippon, near Abingdon, Berkshire, against the noise from aircraft using the R.A.F. Station, Abingdon, including the "deafening roar" and "the dense waves of fumes" that are "belched forth" from the four engined aircraft which use, for the purpose of "hotting up" and "testing", a parking ground which has been recently built for this purpose one hundred yards from the built-up area of the village.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, the siting of these hard standings at the R.A.F. Station at Abingdon was dictated by operational and technical considerations and by the need to avoid demands on further agricultural land on the west side of the airfield. They could not, therefore, have been placed elsewhere on the airfield, as the petitioners have suggested. My right honourable friend is anxious, however, that disturbance to the nearby village should be reduced as far as possible, and has given instructions that engines shall not be tested under full power in this parking area.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, as it becomes increasingly apparent that this aerodrome is ill-sited and ill-suited for the purpose of an aerodrome, I would ask the noble Lord whether he would convey to his right honourable friend the Minister of Defence the suggestion that, in the interest of national economy, as well as in the
1124
interests of peace for the 30,000-odd people who live within 6,000 yards of this station, he should consider abandoning this aerodrome as a flying station and allocate it to the new nuclear research institute, a purpose for which it is admirably suited owing to its close proximity to Harwell and the University of Oxford?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot wholly agree with the noble Lord in his strictures as to the suitability of this airfield, although, as he knows, the Government are most sympathetic to the views of the neighbours of the airfield and are sorry for the inconvenience to which they have been put. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Air visited the airfield as recently as Friday last to see for himself what could be done to mitigate still further the hardships to which the neighbours are undoubtedly being subjected. I will refer to my right honourable friend the point made by the noble Lord, but I am afraid I can hold out no hope whatever that he will agree to the proposal. A great deal of money has already been spent on this airfield, and I am afraid there is no possibility of its being taken up for the purpose for which the noble Lord suggests.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, does the noble Lord think it fair to prejudice the case by anticipating what his right honourable friend may say? Surely, the decision should be that of the Minister of Defence, and not for the noble Lord in anticipation of it.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, of course, the decision does not rest with me, but I think I am duty bound to warn the noble Lord that it is most unlikely that either of my right honourable friends will agree to the suggestion he has put forward. I do not want to prejudice their decision, but only to damp down the noble Lord's optimism well in advance.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, quite frankly, that I am never optimistic about any question I might ask where the Air Force is concerned and where the peace and quiet of the civil population are involved.

SPEED LIMITS
EARL HOWE: 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, in the event of the new 20 m.p.h. limit being approved by Parliament, a situation will arise when there will be speed limits of 15, 20, 30 and 40, m.p.h. in force; whether Her Majesty's Government consider that this multiplicity of speed limits can be enforced, or will assist their observance; and, if not, whether in the interests of road safety and common sense the number can be confined to one of 30 m.p.h. when it is in force.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I assume my noble friend has in mind the experiment with a speed limit of 20 m.p.h. on one road in Slough, to which my right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, has lately agreed. My noble friend will recall that a great many controlled experiments in traffic and safety matters have been conducted in Slough, and I think it is reasonable to ascertain in this way the actual effect on traffic movement and accidents of a speed limit of 20 m.p.h. There is very little experience of such limits on public highways in this country. I am told that there are probably not more than twenty lengths of road on which speed limits of less than 30 m.p.h. are in force. Nearly all speed limits are of 30 m.p.h. and will remain so, but, as the noble Earl is aware, my right honourable friend intends to conduct an experiment in speed limits of 40 m.p.h. in the London traffic area in the near future.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, do I understand the noble Lord to say that there is no experience of a 20 m.p.h. speed limit? My recollection, for what it is worth, is that a 20 m.p.h. speed limit came into operation in 1896—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—and we saw the last of it in 1934. Surely, that would have given everybody a rough idea of what a 20 m.p.h. speed limit is like. Anybody who knows anything about Slough these days knows very well that there are all sorts of queer signs and regulations and "what not" in that area. Do the Government not think that a multiplicity of
1126
speed limits makes their observance and their enforcement extremely difficult? Most noble Lords know what goes on abroad, for instance, in France, where they have many different speed limits. It is difficult to secure their observance where you have a multitude of them. If you have a 30 m.p.h. speed limit only, it is much, easier to secure its observance than when you have these varying speed limits.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord convey to his right honourable friend the absolutely crazy nature of this 20 m.p.h. speed limit, which is carried on upon a main trunk road of this country? Just outside Slough there are traffic lights—if the noble Lord will go there he can see them—at about every 100 yards for about a mile and a half. It is "experiment gone riot." If the Government want to carry out this experiment, surely they need not hold up the main traffic from London to the West by carrying it out on a main road of his nature.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think that many people will have sonic sympathy with the point of view put forward by my noble friend Lord Howe. But this is only an experiment. I am sure my right honourable friend the Minister will bear those considerations in mind before he finally comes to the conclusions that he will have to reach when he has examined this experiment carefully. I am sure, too, that the point of view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will find some sympathy. However, I can think of no place that would be useful where one could have this experiment carried on and where the same criticism would not obtain.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I should like to ask, out of my ignorance, what is the object of the 20 m.p.h. speed limit.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, there are certain stretches where it is imperative to have the speed limit lower than 30 m.p.h., and even lower than 20 m.p.h. in some places, such as the present road through Markyate, where I think there is a 15 m.p.h. speed limit. There will always remain stretches of road where a standard limit could not possibly be observed.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, what I asked is what the experiment is for. I understand that there may be some stretches of road where it is needed, but what is it for?
LORD MANCROFT: What we are trying to find out is whether it is possible to have two different forms of speed limit without the confusion to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has referred.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that there are places where it is imperative that there shall be a 20 m.p.h. limit and a 15 m.p.h. limit. May I ask the noble Lord what authority has stated that to be imperative?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the limits to which I have just referred have been in existence for some time. I imagine that the authority for them is the 1930 Act.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, these are new stretches of road. What authority has pronounced that it is now imperative that a 15 m.p.h. speed limit shall be observed in various places? Surely, it is an experiment, and nothing more.
LORD MANCROFT: No, my Lords, I do not think so. The 15 m.p.h. speed limit to which I have been referring, like the one through Markyate, or that which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, probably knows well, round about Southampton Docks, has been in force for some time; they are on the authority of the Minister of Transport, and probably under the 1930 Act.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Does the noble Lord know that the 15 m.p.h. speed limit at Markyate is to be done away with as a result of the by-pass? Is it proposed to have a 15 m.p.h. speed limit on the by-pass? So far as Southampton Docks are concerned, that is private property.
LORD MANCROFT: The noble Lord is making very heavy weather of this. I am well aware that the by-pass round Markyate will do away with the difficulty. I merely gave an example. There are many places in the country where exceptional conditions prevail, and have prevailed for a considerable time.

SUNDAY OPENING OF CINEMAS
5.40 p.m.
LORD JESSEL LORD JESSEL rose to call attention to the provision of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, which discriminates against Sunday opening of cinemas; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for initiating a debate at this late hour, but I will try to be brief. Your Lordships have recently discussed the Cinematograph Films Bill, and it was only yesterday that your Lordships gave the Bill a Third Reading. That Bill in no way touches on the point which is the subject of my Motion. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, on the Second Reading of the Bill in December of last year, made some pertinent observations on the unfairness of what is known as the "Sunday charity contribution," and asked that this matter should receive the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in winding up (he was in what I call one of his "racy" moods that afternoon), never dealt with the subject at all, as he was quite entitled to do. I thought it only fair to the exhibitors that I should put down this Motion in an attempt to find out exactly how Her Majesty's Government stand on this matter. One result of my putting down this Motion has been that it has led me into unexpected company. Two Bishops have spoken to me, and the Lord's Day Observance Society have written me a letter. I think it is true to say that the bulk of the general public in this country are quite unaware of the existence of the Sunday charity contribution, so it is almost impossible to guess what public opinion is on this matter.
Before dealing with the situation as it exists to-day, I think it would be helpful if I said a few words about the events leading up to the passing of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932. Prior to then, under the provisions of the Sunday Observance Act, 1780, it was an offence for any premises to which the public paid for admission to be used for public entertainment or amusement on Sundays. But licensing authorities—those authorities which license cinemas which are open during the week—did, occasionally, give informal permission for Sunday opening

1129
for concerts, et cetera. But this permission was subject to several conditions; for instance, no make-up was allowed; no dancing; and the bulk of the proceeds had to go to charity—which in those days usually meant the voluntary hospitals. This method of Sunday opening was not satisfactory, and it left the proprietors of the cinema or concert hall open to action by common informers under the Sunday Observance Act. So, in 1932, the position of Sunday opening of cinemas was regularised by the passing of the Sunday Entertainments Act. This Act operates a kind of local option. Where the majority of the electorate express the wish for Sunday opening, it is allowed, subject to the provisions of the Act, the most important of which is to ensure that those who work on Sundays should have a day off during the previous week.
There is also the clause under which the local licensing authority is called upon to require payment to charities of such sums as it thinks fit, not exceeding the amount it: estimates as the amount of Sunday opening profits. This is what is known as the Sunday charity contribution, or the Sunday cinema levy. I should add that the first 5 per cent. of the Sunday opening profits have to be paid to the Cinematograph Fund, which is a Government-sponsored body, and the money is used to subsidise the British Films Institute. At the present time, the total amount collected by licensing authorities from cinema exhibitors in respect of the Sunday charity contribution exceeds £400,000 a year. And this is on top of the entertainments tax and represents an additional burden on the exhibitors.
But it is not so much the money as the principle to which the exhibitors object. Admittedly there is a demand for Sunday opening, because 2½ million people go to the films every Sunday. Why, then, should the exhibitors have to pay this special tax which no other form of Sunday trading has to bear? Sunday television and Sunday newspapers are not discriminated against in this manner. On the aspect of television, it was only this morning that I received a letter from which, with your Lordships' permission, will quote, because I think it makes my point very well. It says:
"But I.T.V. is a purely profit-making concern; only difference between films shown in a cinema on Sunday and films televised on
1130
Sunday is that the cinema is obliged to pay both entertainments tax and a contribution to charity."
As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked, in the speech to which I have previously referred, "Does this payment represent conscience money?" He went on to say that the tax was not paid by the "sinners ", the people who go to the cinema on Sunday, but by the owners of the cinemas—because I would remind your Lordships that the admission price on Sundays is exactly the same as that during the week. The Lord's Day Observance Society, in their letter to the Home Secretary in March, 1956 (I know they will not mind my quoting it, because they sent me a copy), said:
"No Christian or body of Christians would regard the Sunday opening of cinemas as less subversive of the sanctity of the Christian Sunday because money is paid to charities therefrom."
So much for the moral issue.
Then there is the question of the unsatisfactory method of collecting and allocating this Sunday charity contribution. I know that my noble friend Lord Westwood, who has spent most of his working life in the cinema industry, is going to tell us something about this aspect. All I would say is that there is no uniformity of practice in the method of computing the amount of the contribution. To give a fictitious example, in Brighton it might be 5 per cent. of the profits, and in Newcastle it might be 50 per cent. Equally haphazard is the method by which the money, once collected, is distributed. Before the nationalisation of the voluntary hospitals they were the chief beneficiaries, but now, of course, the hospitals do not depend on charity. I know that the word "charity" has a wide meaning, but can it really be argued that contributions to such organisations as the Family Planning Association, the Marriage Guidance Council, the Citizens' Advice Bureau, and a Hard-of Hearing Group, were really contemplated as recipient of this charity under the 1932 Act? Sometimes, the licensing authorities cannot even make up their minds as to how to allocate the money, and I am told that they "sit on" it for many years. Also, in tome areas, the exhibitors never know what eventually happens to the contribution that has been taken from them.
Since 1932, for better or for worse, there has been a great change in public

1131
habits. There was no television in those days. The number of cinemas opening on Sunday was comparatively small, and mostly confined to the big towns. Now, aproximately two out of three cinemas open every Sunday: it is an accepted part of the national life. Surely the time has come when the section of the 1932 Act under which the levy is imposed should be abolished. Foreigners have often called us a nation of hypocrites, and we deserve this description if we allow this type of law to continue to operate. Your Lordships are familiar with the quotation from Macaulay.
"The Puritans hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear but because it gave pleasure to the spectators."
Sunday cinemas certainly give little pain, but they can give pleasure; and to-day they are paying a special, unique tax for the privilege. I know that there is little Parliamentary time available this Session, but I hope that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, when he conies to reply, will give me some encouragement and say that Her Majesty's Government realise that this Sunday charity contribution is unfair, out of date and should be discontinued. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.52 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I intervene in this debate only for the reason that during the passage of the Cinematograph Films Bill through your Lordships' House I raised this matter of the Sunday entertainment levy upon the cinemas of this country. I asked the Government to accept an Amendment dealing with the manner in which this Sunday entertainment levy should be treated before the statutory levy was deducted from the profits of cinemas. I will read to your Lordships the Amendment that I put down [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 201 (No. 27), col. 383]:
"An exhibitor shall be entitled to deduct from his box office takings an amount equal to any levy payment made by him under this part of this Act in respect of any performance given on a Sunday before calculating any sum payable under paragraph (a) of section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, in connection with such Sunday performance when the sum is calculated by reference to a percentage of the box office takings or some part thereof."
Under the Bill that left your Lordships' House only yesterday, a statutory levy is
1132
now imposed on the takings of a cinema on week-days as well as on Sundays. This is an extra levy, imposed under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and I wanted to make sure that that was taken out before the other levy was imposed.
During the course of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who was speaking on behalf of the Government, was very sympathetic and said [Col. 390]:
"I am not entirely happy about the position, and I think that to turn it down out of hand"—
that is, the Amendment—
"and to say that nothing should be done about it would be quite wrong. If the noble Lord will accept that assurance from me, without any question of accepting his Amendment, of course, I will certainly see that his observations and those of other noble Lords are given second thoughts, and we will see what we can do along those lines."
Just previous to that the noble Lord said:
"I will go back to my right honourable friend on this matter generally and consult with him."
In withdrawing the Amendment, I said:
"… with the proviso that I shall wait for him at some convenient time to tell the House the result of his deliberations with his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, and we can then see how to proceed. I will leave it to him to make the next gesture."
On that understanding, I withdrew my Amendment. I hope the noble Viscount who is now going to reply on behalf of the Government will see whether he cannot implement in some way that undertaking, and whether his right honourable friend can at least do something about this aspect of the case, if he cannot do anything with the general aspect raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, while the Bill which has now left your Lordships' House is making progress in another place.
I agree absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Jessel. The Sunday Entertainments Act is a most peculiar Act. I am not going into the virtues or the vices of the Sunday opening of cinemas. The Act allows the local populace to decide that by vote, and I am quite prepared to leave it to them. But one of the mistakes it contains is this—and the noble Viscount, I expect, is quite conversant with the Act—first, that the local authority can make a levy on the takings up to the amount of the profit, and they can decide how the profit is arrived at. The local

1133
authority can demand the takings of a cinema on a Sunday and, so long as they do not extract a levy which is in excess of the profit, they can extract any amount. Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Jesse, has said, they can hand it over to charity. But in the Bill there is no definition of "charity." As the noble Lord has quite rightly said, in the days of the voluntary hospitals it was the usual practice to hand it over to the hospitals.
I have made some researches into how the local authority get rid of this levy, which in sonic cases is of a substantial amount. I believe that in Nottingham it has worked out at up to £30,000. Some of the things that the noble Lord has mentioned I myself would not consider as coming within the category of "charity". For instance, I understand that the local authority in Wigan has allocated certain sums out of this Sunday entertainments levy so that the old folk of Wigan cart ride in public transport free of charge—a laudable thought, but hardly, I should think, coming within the category of "charity".
The noble Lord, Lord Jessel, has mentioned the Family Planning Association. I have made some investigations into that. I see in the report of this body that the L.C.C. Sunday Cinema Fund voted £200. Then, when I turn over the page and sec the objects of the Family Planning Association, I observe right at the top that their main object is
"to advocate and promote the provision of facilities for scientific contraception."
I would not say that that fell within the category of "charity." I am not going to make any comment about the laudability or otherwise of the Family Planning Association or of many of these other things, but, surely, if we are going to carry on what I think is a very out-of-date Act—arid as the noble Lord has said, the need of the original charitable donations to the local hospitals has more or less been done away with—consideration should be given to whether or not there should be some regulation.
I would ask the noble Viscount to consult with his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade and endeavour to see that the amount taken is the same all over the country. As the noble Lord has said, some local authorities take a percentage of the takings, some have a block amount and
1134
some do not take any at all or take just a nominal amount. Here is an industry which is struggling. We passed a Bill only the other day imposing on it a levy of anything from £2 million to £5 million a year, and cinemas are being shut down. As your Lordships know, 179 cinemas shut down last year. Here they are, competing against 8 million private cinemas every Sunday, the 8 million private enemas being all the homes in this country that have a television set. That is the householder's private cinema. That does not have to pay any charitable donation; it has not to pay any entertainments tax, yet it takes away the custom of the local cinema which is now struggling. I would support the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, in saying that this contribution should be abolished. I see no reason for it at the present time. It seems hard that one section of the community, the cinema proprietors, who may be losing money to-day, should have to give their takings to a charity when they are far more deserving of charity than the recipient.
Some noble Lords may ask, "Why does the cinema proprietor open on Sunday?" That is a good point. There are various reasons why he may keep open on Sunday: for contract purposes, film hire purposes and things of that sort, the techniques of which I will not go into. I leave it to other noble Lords to develop other aspects of this matter. I am concerned to press the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, to implement the undertaking which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft gave when he was speaking on behalf of the Government throughout the Committee stage of the Cinematograph Films Bill. He said that the Government were unhappy about the incidence of this matter. Therefore would the noble Viscount consult with his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, to see whether he can get two things regularised while the Bill is passing through another place: first of all, that the deduction of the Sunday levy is made before the statutory levy is arrived at secondly, that there is some uniformity or some flat rate of deduction throughout the country?
May I conclude by asking your Lordships to extend your consideration to me? Owing to the Welsh valleys and the Liverpool waters overflowing, I shall have to leave in a very few minutes, as I have an

1135
important engagement. I felt it my duty to try to put my case before I left. I hope that the noble Lord will not take it in any way amiss if I leave in about five minutes' time. I apologise to your Lordships for doing so, but I am afraid that the circumstances are outside my control.
6.3 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CARLISLE: My Lords, I shall probably be in a minority in this debate in the contention which I am hoping to make. Before embarking on the main discussion, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, for giving me beforehand the gist of the complaints or arguments against the continuance of this contribution to charity. The burden of the noble Lord's contention is that the contribution to charity which Sunday cinemas are compelled to make is unreasonable and unfair.
In order to see this matter in its right perspective, it is necessary to look to the time and the conditions when the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, was passed. It was the result of a good deal of agitation, a great deal of controversy and quite a lot of compromise; but strongly behind the Act stood the cinematograph business. The other day I looked up some parts of the debate, and I should like to quote from one in which I found that Mr. Rhys-Davies, speaking on an Amendment on June 29, 1932, said this:
"When the Bill was first mooted, the cinematograph exhibitors said to the London County Council in particular, 'If you will let us open on Sundays we will give something to charity.'"
Then, to continue the quotation, he said:
"There was no argument then against charity. But once they felt that they had established the right to open on Sundays, the idea of charity began to wane. It was used as a lever … to open the places."
The idea of charity began to wane once the opening battle was won. How like human nature! Human nature does not change very much, or very quickly.
At that time, the proposal to contribute to charity came, I understand, from the trade itself and was supported by it. The proposed contribution to charity was used as a very strong influence in securing the passage of the Bill. That is a fact that must not be lost sight of. There was no contention that it was unfair or
1136
unreasonable. A Bill was wanted, and this was a useful way of helping to get it. No one supposed that the cinematograph industry was more charitably disposed than any other industry, but it used charity as a strong inducement to secure the privileged position it gained in opening the cinemas on the most leisured day of the week. For thirty years they have been exploiting that day, the only condition being that they contribute to charity. But that condition was freely accepted. It was not regarded as unreasonable when the Bill was being promoted, and after the Bill was passed was not regarded as an unreasonable way of trying to persuade local constituencies to vote for the opening of cinemas. Throughout these local campaigns, again and again this has been used as a way of winning people to vote for the opening of cinemas. I can remember well such slogans as "Help the hospitals by voting for Sunday cinemas," and "Sunday cinemas will help your local charities." In these campaigns there was no complaint about the unfairness or unreasonableness of this contribution to charity.
LORD JESSEL: May I just interrupt for one moment the right reverend Prelate's argument? What was the incidence of entertainments tax in those days?—nothing comparable with to-day.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CARLISLE: My Lords, I would contend that the principle, which was freely accepted and embedded in the Act, is not at all affected by the imposition of an entertainments tax, which all other entertainments have to pay as well. I think it is clear that the objection is not really to the principle of the contribution to charity, but to the fact that the profits in the cinematograph business have decreased.
Here we and the trade are faced with a basic difficulty. It would be callous not to appreciate that problem or to be indifferent to it, and I do not come here to say one word of disparagement about the trade, or to gloat in any way over the difficulties which confront that business—far from it. I want to consider this matter quite sympathetically and without emotion. I am told that cinematograph profits have decreased considerably. It has been pointed out television has come in as a serious rival. The noble Lord,

1137
Lord Lucas of Chilworth, mentioned that, and he seemed to imply that it was unfair that people should be able to sit in their own home and see pictures without having to pay something comparable to entertainments tax or to charity. I hope it will be a long time before we contemplate taxing people for entertainment in their own homes. Surely every business is confronted with new rivals from time to time; and television is a very legitimate rival.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I interrupt the right reverend Prelate for a moment, in order to follow his argument? Is the right reverend Prelate trying to argue that Sunday entertainment is all right if it is in private but not if it is in public?
THE LORD BISHOP OF CARLISLE: My Lords, I am not discussing that, nor do I think that the question of the rightness or wrongness of entertainment on Sunday comes into this Motion at all. We are faced with the fact that cinemas have a right to open, and we are not trying to take away that right. What some of us are saying is that they should continue to observe the condition imposed when they secured the right; and it is only that condition that is being discussed in this Motion. I think it is fair and reasonable to say to the cinemas, "As you have the right to open through accepting a condition, you must abide by that condition unless you can show very strong reasons for departing from it." That condition was deliberately embedded in the Act, and the principle of the compulsory contribution to charity is as much a principle of the Act as local option.
I want to consider this matter sympathetically, and I ask: why are the profits falling? The fall may be due to television, but that is a legitimate rival. It may be due to other causes, some of which have been mentioned to me. It is contended that Sunday films are often not of very good quality, that a large number of old films have been brought out from dusty cupboards and shown. I do not know what truth there is in that contention. We may have reached a stage when people are growing a little weary of passive entertainment, or are becoming satiated with the kind of pictures shown. These are possible causes. There may be another reason: that too many cinemas are opening on Sunday, more than the
1138
number for which there is a just demand. Your Lordships will know that the propaganda for the Sunday opening of cinemas has been so fierce and so powerfully organised, well supported by glamorous film stars, that I sometimes begin to think that the promoters of cinematograph films on Sundays have been deceived by their own propaganda into thinking that the demand is greater than it really is. Consequently, more cinemas may be opening than are necessary.
Whatever the cause, the reduction of profits is a fact which has to be faced. How are these profits affected by the charity contribution? If the cinemas have reached the stage where their future well-being is dependent on the abolition of this small contribution to charity, then I am afraid that its abolition will not preserve them for very long. But I believe that there is another way of easing the difficulties which confront cinematograph promoters. That is the way that is embedded in the Act, through the power vested in the local licensing authority. There is no statutory amount demanded for Sunday opening. The amount contributed is decided by the local licensing authority. No uniform method is used. In some cases the amount is in proportion to the rateable value of the cinema; in twenty-eight places, a percentage of the takings is asked for; in thirty-five places, a lump sum is paid annually, and in some other cases a charge is made for charity of ¼d. or ½d. per seat, according to price.
Only the principle is laid down in the Act. This is the main bone of my contention. The working out of the principle is left to the local licensing authority, and there is no rigid or uniform method applied. Every constituency is considered in the light of local conditions. The Act allows flexibility and wide power of discretion to the local licensing authority, but that authority will consider the matter only where it can be shown that it is fair and reasonable so to do. Let the local cinema promoters put their case before the local committees and seek relief in that way. A great many other enterprises have to do that kind of thing. This method of action is inherent in the principle of local option; it is a method which is part and parcel of our way of doing things. It will be no use the trade making vague claims that profits are not

1139
so good as they would like. They never are, are they? The promoters must put their cards on the table and reveal their takings, their expenses and their profits. If they can make a fair and good case, I am convinced that they will receive fair treatment and that the contributory assessment will be appropriately reduced. As I have said, it can be reduced almost to nothing.
In my submission, it would be far better and wiser to proceed in this way than to try to alter an Act which was passed after much controversy and compromise. It is better to try to take full advantage of the easements which may be secured through local consultation; and if the cinema promoters' case is good, their legitimate grievances can be met and the principle of the charitable contribution still preserved. This principle, which had to be embedded in the Act, bears witness to a recognition that Sunday is a day different from other days in the week. I put this point just like that. It is only in the Act because it bears witness to the fact that Sunday is a different kind of day, and a man does not need to commit himself to any rigid Sabbatarianism in order to contend that Sunday is a special day; that it has made a special contribution to our way of life, and that it ought to be cherished for the spiritual, cultural and social opportunities which it offers. The faster and noisier life becomes, the greater is the need to value Sunday as a day different from others, a day when the soul of man can find some relief from the many materialistic pressures which are on all of us, from Monday morning to Saturday night. We have to safeguard our mind and spirit against that continuous pressure which is far more dangerous to our life than materialistic ideas that are propagated from abroad.
I should hope that in all legislation affecting Sunday the need to safeguard it against commercial or financial exploitation will be fully recognised. It is so recognised in the Act under consideration, and I plead for the retention of its principle, on the broad grounds that the preservation of Sunday as a day different from other days is in the interests of the nation as a whole and contributes to the well-being of our national and social life. I plead for retention of the principle, believing that the difficulty which confronts
1140
the cinema trade can be dealt with sympathetically and fairly, by the machinery which the Act sets up, through the local licensing committees. I believe that this principle can be retained, and that the legitimate grievances and difficulties of the trade can be ironed out. The day may come again—indeed, I expect it will come, and I shall be happy to see it—when the cinemas will be making profits. And I like to think that, when that time comes, the generous hearts of the promoters who prompted the principle in the Act, and the equally generous hearts of those who continue the showing of films, will not be saddened by the reflection that in the time of misfortune the first casualty was this contribution to charity.
6.22 p.m.
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, as I am associated with the cinematograph industry, I am greatly indebted to my noble friend Lord Jessel for initiating this debate to-day, and also for the able manner in which he has put the case before the House. Practically every week, as your Lordships well know, Motions are submitted and agreed to in this House whereby an Order is made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to some local authority. In many of those cases, the opening of the cinemas on Sundays has been brought about only by the laborious procedure of towns meetings, which are followed by a plebiscite of the electorate, all of which are carried out at some considerable expense. It is my opinion—and it is shared by the cinema industry as a whole—that the method of obtaining the opening of cinemas on Sundays is archaic and outmoded and the time has now arrived when the whole system of the Sunday Entertainments Act should be overhauled and revised in the light of modern experience.
To-day, we are not debating the rights or wrongs of Sunday opening of cinemas—the case for Sunday cinemas has been fully justified by the fact that there are nearly 3,000 cinemas open on Sundays out of a total of 4,500; in other words, two out of every three cinemas open on Sundays. It has been my experience during the past twenty-five years that when local polls are held to determine whether cinemas should or should not

1141
open on Sundays the votes which are cast in favour of Sunday opening outweigh the other votes by very substantial majorities. In some cases, the majorities are four or five or even six to one, which proves to me that the members of the public look upon their local cinema as an amenity and a public service which they can enjoy when they please. The trouble arises after permission has been granted to open the cinemas. It is then that the local authorities levy the Sunday charity contribution, which they are empowered to do under Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932. This charity contribution, as it is called, can be the whole of the cinema exhibitor's profits for that Sunday upon which he opens his theatre. I actually know of one case, in my part of the country, where a cinema's total profits for the year from opening on Sundays, amounted to £113, and the local licensing authority assessed the charity contribution at £110, which left the cinema owner with the sum of £3 as a result of opening his cinema for fifty-two Sundays—a profit, in other words, of 1s. 2d. per Sunday.
The Sunday charity contribution is assessed, as you have heard, in various ways in different parts of the country. There are cases where a cinema on one side of a street is assessed at a different rate from another cinema on the opposite side of the street, simply because they are in separate licensing areas. The methods of assessment are: one, a flat rate irrespective of box office receipts; two, an assessment on a seating basis; three, a percentage of the rateable value of the premises; and four, a percentage of the net receipts. The amounts and the system of calculating this levy are entirely at the discretion of the local licensing authorities, and whilst there are many who are fairly reasonable in their demands, I am sorry to say that there are others who, unfortunately, look upon cinemas as suitable sources of revenue from which to extract as much as they possibly can. There is no appeal from this imposition, except to the authority itself, which thus assumes the role of both judge and jury.
Prior to the war, those so-called charity contributions proved very helpful indeed to hospitals and other worthy institutions, but with the introduction of the Nat ional Health Service this need was considerably reduced and, as you have
1142
been told by my noble friend Lord Jesse', there are some local authorities who have found it very difficult to distribute the money because of the lack of suitable charitable objects. Since the year 1942, the total amount paid over by the cinema exhibitors has been £6,469,700, and the sum paid over for last year was £436,700. This is a large sum of money, and, as your Lordships heard during the recent debates cm the new Cinematograph Films Bill, it would have been very welcome indeed to help out and assist those exhibitors who are losing their businesses through the burden of the heavy entertainment taxation. It might even have been the means of saving some of them from closing their doors.
Out of the 3,000 cinemas which open on Sundays, over 2,000 are situated in industrial areas, which, in my opinion, proves that the majority of people who attend Sunday performances are the masses—the people who want to get away for two or three hours from their everyday worries and problems and relax During a recent campaign, which ended in favour of Sunday opening by a very large majority, the Lord's Day Observance Society issued a pamphlet which read:
"Sunday cinemas are a charity farce. No one should be deceived by it."
Then it went on to refer to the charity levy as a sop. My Lords, it is a sop—make no mistake about it—but it is a very expulsive one and a very unfair one.
I am glad to say that there are a few licensing authorities who are fully alive to this iniquity. In Hove, for example, I am informed that the contribution has now been fixed at Is. per cinema per Sunday for the large theatres and 1s. per cinema per Sunday for the smaller ones. As I see it, the main factors against the continuation of this injustice are as follows. First, there is no other service called upon to pay a tax for the privilege of trading on Sundays. Secondly, the charity contribution is an unjust imposition and totally foreign to our idea of British fair play. Thirdly, the cinemas are open on Sundays by the will and desire of the people of this country. Fourthly, cinema owners maintain—and I think rightly—that they are performing a valuable public service and they ought not to be penalised for doing it. Fifthly, since the end of the war, conditions have changed and charities such as hospitals, which

1143
were originally intended to benefit, are now the responsibility of the State. Sixthly, with the advent of television, plus the new commercial television, entertainments are now projected right into the homes of the people and there is no charity tax or entertainments tax payable on that entertainment. Seventhly, and this is a very important point, the police authorities throughout the country always welcome the opening of cinemas on Sunday because they keep young men and women off the streets and out of the public houses
These seven points are fully appreciated by the exhibitors, who look upon this financial burden as an imposition which should be abolished with as little delay as possible. In this they have the full support of the trade union movement. In fact, it was Sir Tom O'Brien. M.P., the general secretary of the National Association of Theatre and Kinema Employees, who recently referred to the Sunday charity levy as "legalised blackmail"—a very apt description of it. Another M.P. has called it, "money paid to the devil". I have never been able to correlate public conscience and Sunday opening with the Sunday charity levy. I have never been able to understand why it is wrong in the minds of some people to open cinemas on Sunday, but it is all right if you give something to charity. It will be a very sad day for this country if consciences can be purchased so easily.
The whole principle is wrong. Every Government have been reluctant to tackle this problem, as they know it would be likely to get them into bad odour with the people who take an interest in the charities which benefit or with those other people who still oppose the opening of the cinemas on Sundays and who have votes to use at election time. The Sunday charity contribution was never meant to be a penalty. It puts the exhibitors, to my mind, in the same category as a naughty schoolboy who has been ordered to stand in the corner for some misdeed. So often have the exhibitors been told by various Governments that there is little hope of getting this levy removed by legislation. Could the Government, as an alternative to the complete removal of the levy, recommend to the local licensing authorities that they should reduce the sum to a very small amount whereby its total removal will
1144
be no more than its irritation value? That would be some help to the cinema exhibitors.
There is just one other matter I will touch upon regarding discrimination, and that refers to the showing of Category X films on Sundays. Some local licensing authorities have prohibited the showing of those films on Sundays, with the result that special programmes have to be booked for Sunday performances. I cannot see the reason why cinemas are not allowed to show these films on Sundays when they are shown for the remainder of the week. In my opinion, this discrimination is not sensible when you consider some of the television programmes which go into the homes and which children look at. Cinema audiences on Sundays are in the main adult audiences, and if they are permitted to see Category X films during the week, surely they can see them on Sunday. The principle of Sunday opening has been accepted and approved by the majority of the public. It is only right and proper that the principle be stripped clean of the hypocrisy and cant that has stuck to it for the past twenty-five years, and I am hopeful that this debate has done something to bring this about.
6.34 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jessel was kind enough to refer to the speech I made during the Second Reading of the Cinematograph Films Bill. As he says, I feel strongly about this matter, and I am glad that he has brought this Motion before the House to-day. We are all grateful to him, because it has given rise to an interesting debate. I think that the 3.000 cinema owners in this country and the 2½ million people who go to cinemas on Sunday will also be grateful to him.
Before the passing of the Act of 1932, certain cinemas did open on Sundays, and they paid a charitable contribution which at that time was entirely voluntary. At the time of the passing of the Act, the cinema industry was favourable to the payment of this contribution, but that was twenty-five years ago. Much has happened since then. The hospitals, for instance, who were one of the main recipients of this contribution, have been nationalised, and there has also been the advent of television. I cannot help feeling that if television had been in existence

1145
at the time of the passing of the Act, this voluntary charitable contribution would not have been made statutory. The cinemas exhibitors feel strongly about this contribution. If I understood him aright, the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Carlisle did not object to the opening of cinemas on Sunday and thought that it was justified by the payment of the charitable contribution.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CARLISLE: My Lords, I should like to correct that. I said that I was not discussing the rights or wrongs of Sunday opening; I was merely saying that this principle was put into being in order to secure the opening of cinemas. It has no effect upon the moral aspect of the question at all. The only aspect is whether it is right, when you have used the principle, to throw it away.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for that explanation, but I cannot sec why, just because something was so at the time, it should always remain so. There may have been a case for this contribution, and the cinema industry might even have been in favour of it twenty-five years ago, but I cannot see that there is any case for it on ethical grounds to-day. Furthermore, the industry is burdened with a high rate of entertainments tax in addition to this contribution. As the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, has pointed out, the cinema exhibitors cannot understand why they, alone of all who provide Sunday entertainment, should be singled out to pay sums to charity. For example, publicans do not have to do this. A publican is not expected to put something in the collecting box every time he serves a drink to one of his customers, though I am sure many of them do that voluntarily; but it is not so required by law.
I cannot understand why it is considered, if not wrong at least something which should be atoned for by payment of money to charity, to go to a public showing of a film in a cinema on Sunday, when it is not wrong to see the film on television. I feel that the whole situation is hypocritical, and the cinema trade feel that this is a form of conscience money. As my noble friend Lord Jessel pointed out, we are sometimes accused by other countries of being hypocrites,
1146
I think in many cases quite unreasonably, but this would seem to be a case when possibly their criticism has some justification.
I should like to dwell on some of the charities which benefit from this so-called Sunday charity contribution. Many of them were not in existence in 1932, at the time of the passing of the Act. Furthermore, I cannot see why these charities should not be helped by local councils from the rates. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has drawn attention to the allocation of £100 from this contribution by the Corporation of Wigan to provide free or cheap facilities on their buses for old people. That is a most worthy object. But surely this should be a charge on the rates.
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): No doubt the noble Lord has overlooked for the moment that such a charge was held to be illegal in the High Court, I think, a year ago.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for pointing out that fact. But while that may be so, I still Jo not see why the cinema proprietor should be called upon to fill the breach. Then, as has also been pointed out, another corporation has accumulated £30,000 over the last ten years which it has not spent at all. I happen to know of another case where the local council fixed the amount per cinema as round sum per annum, to be paid half yearly. One cinema in the area which had been closed for some time was reopened on almost the last Sunday in the half-yearly period. Notwithstanding that, the local council obliged them to pay the charity contribution as if they had been open for the whole period. That seems to me to have been most unfair. Indeed, the exhibitor concerned felt so strongly about it that, through his association, he took up the matter with the local council, who said in reply that he should have taken this into account when determining his anticipated profits before deciding to open. That seems to me to be a case of putting the cart before the horse, because surely this contribution is based on the profits, and should not be taken into account in calculating what they may be.
The cinema industry do not object to giving money to charity; indeed, I think

1147
they have a fine record of contributions to charity—as fine as any industry in the country. They are most generous in giving their houses for premières, and they also have collections in their cinemas. I think that during the Second World War they raised £1 million for the Red Cross Prisoners of War Fund, and during the last ten years they have raised another £1 million. What they object to is that this money should be extorted from them by Statute when they themselves, like most other industries in this country, are voluntarily contributing handsomely to deserving charities. As has already been mentioned in this debate, 5 per cent. of this contribution is paid to the British Film Institute; it is paid to a fund which is known as the Cinemtaograph Fund, which I believe is under the control of the Privy Council. The British Film Institute is partly subsidised from this fund; and I believe that the Government give a contribution. The figures for the year ended March 31, 1956, were as follows: the Government contributed £42,900, and the Cinematograph Fund, from the Sunday charity contribution, £22,000. The Institute, of course, also received a revenue from subscriptions, publications et cetera of another £30,000 This institute is a Government-sponsored and controlled body, and I cannot understand why the Government should not assume complete financial responsibility for it. They already pay two-thirds of the subsidy, and I think it would be an excellent thing if they paid the whole amount.
The British Film Institute does most important work. It maintains the National Film Theatre on the South Bank; it arranges, in conjunction with the London County Council, lectures on films for children, and it maintains a distribution library. I think we all agree that this work is most important to the film industry; but I see no more reason why the exhibitors should have to pay a contribution towards the subsidy for this Institute than, for instance, the antique dealers or art dealers of this country should help to pay towards maintaining the Victoria and Albert Museum, which does for the fine arts a similar kind of work to that done by the Film Institute for the art of the film. The antique dealers and art dealers contribute handsomely to the arts through the National Art Collections Fund, but
1148
it is a voluntary contribution and is not extorted from them by Statute. I would suggest to the Government that they should, perhaps, take over the whole of this subsidy and relieve the cinema trade of the 5 per cent. To sum up, I think that deserving local objects should be helped from the rates, if possible; or, if that is not legally possible, from some other source, and that the Film Institute should be helped by a direct grant from the Treasury, as indeed the Treasury help already by providing two-thirds of the sum.
6.48 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, replies, I should like to say a word or two. We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, for introducing this debate this afternoon. One must appreciate that the Act has now been in operation for some twenty-five years, and obviously, if there is to be a change in the law, the local authorities will have to be consulted. The second thing I want to say is that many charities have been helped over the last twenty-five years. I will not say that they have been able to get a vested interest in these contributions from the Sunday entertainment fund, but in any case, I should imagine that many of them will be quite vocal if any change in the law is made. But, as has been repeatedly pointed out this afternoon, local authorities to-day have far greater freedom to help voluntary bodies from their own funds under the Local Government Act, 1948, than they had in 1932. Whether they will show the same readiness to help these voluntary bodies when the ratepayers have to find the money as they do when somebody else finds it remains to be seen.
Noble Lords this afternoon have talked about the differences between the methods of assessment adopted by various local authorities. As one who had some part in placing this levy on cinemas in my own locality, perhaps I can give your Lordships an instance of how it was done. This was in 1934, when I happened to be the mayor of the borough in question. Along with the town clerk, I was instructed to negotiate a settlement with the local cinemas. In the course of the negotiations, for some reason which has never been explained to me the late town

1149
clerk displayed a striking hostility to the cinema industry. I can assure your Lordships that it was not on Sabbatarian grounds, but I will not develop that matter. A hard bargain was driven, and he threatened the cinemas that unless the figures which had been agreed to were accepted, he would insist upon the books for each cinema, showing everything for the particular Sunday, being produced to his council. The figures were very substantial for each of the theatres.
I do not know what went on between the agreement which I arrived at as mayor of the borough and the meeting of the council, except that there was an extraordinary unanimity between both Parties on the motion to increase what had been agreed upon by 10 per cent. I mention that to illustrate the haphazard way in which this levy is placed on the cinemas. One knows, too, the scramble which goes on, and the pressure which is put upon members of a council by various bodies in order to have a share in the money which is available.
The noble Lord, Lord Westwood, put forward seven admirable reasons for dealing with this matter. I venture to put forward an eighth. Like the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Carlisle, I have been refreshing my mind from the debates in 1932, and I found this justification for the levy from the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. Incidentally, the Bill was introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and his Parliamentary Secretary was replying to the debate on it. He put forward this justification for the levy:
"If you take the view that this is a service which the public demand and to which they are entitled upon a Sunday, then you must logically take the view that the people who provide that service are entitled to a reasonable profit for that service, just as they are entitled to a reasonable profit on any other service they provide. What I do say is that though they are entitled to a reasonable profit for the service they provide, it is not right that there should be a particular inducement to make Sunday a day upon which, of all others, they expect to secure a profitable return—in fact to make Sunday opening more profitable to them than opening on any other day. It is therefore quite logical that, while you allow a reasonable profit to those who provide the service, you should be entitled to take some proportion for the sake of charitable objects in the neighbourhood."
Looking at that quite fairly and impartially, I think it is a good logical statement for the imposition of the Sunday
1150
levy. But the whole basis of the argument has now been destroyed, because the cinema industry in this country, on the last published figures for production, distribution and exhibition, shows a loss of over £1 million, and one man of note in that industry has said that the profits of the cinemas to-day depend upon the sale of ice-cream, chocolates and things of that kind. If that is so, I suggest that the whole basis on which a levy was defended by the Government of that time has been destroyed. The local authorities now have greater freedom in regard to helping charitable objects, and the time has come when, if this matter cannot he looked at separately, consideration should be given to the whole problem of the finance of the industry. I am convinced—and I hope I am not taking too pessimistic a view—that unless something is done, in view of the powerful competitors which they have to-day in the form of Government-sponsored television, and so on, the cinema industry will be facing a crisis which it might not survive. I therefore hope that, as a result of this debate, the Government will take the whole problem of cinema finance into careful and urgent consideration.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, may I ask one question with regard to a point raised by the noble Lord. Lord Burden? If there is no profit, is there any levy?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The answer is, none at all.
6.58 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I should like to say a few brief words from the point of view of the charities which benefit from this Sunday levy. Unfortunately, I was unable to be in the House to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jessel, and I have already apologised to him. I think the wrong impression has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, that in these days of the Welfare Stile, and as the hospitals are no longer dependent on charity, there are few worthy charitable objects. Of course, that is not so. This impression that the local authorities are scratching around to find suitable charities, I do not think bears investigation.
I happen to be on the council of a charity which sends away to the country from the London area large numbers of

1151
children who would not otherwise get a holiday. I would estimate that what we receive from this Sunday opening fund enables us to send at least 50 or 100 children a year for a well deserved holiday. We do not receive large sums, but at the same time it would hit this particular charity—and I know of many others—if this small source of income was taken away from us. I am speaking, of course, mainly for the London area. I am sure there is no difficulty in finding recipients, because we by no means receive support every year. We have to take our turn with many other probably equally deserving objects.
I thought a good case was put by the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, for more uniformity in the way in which these levies are made, and certainly there is a very good case in some areas where they are probably too onerous. But I thought the noble Lord was a little hard when he talked about the "cant" and "hypocrisy" of this arrangement. I believe that if the matter were put properly to those who patronise the cinemas on Sunday, they would not grudge the small amount which does so much good.
LORD WESTWOOD: My Lords, may I rise on that point? It is the cinema owners, not the public, who pay the charity.
LORD GIFFORD: I am coming to that point. I am putting this forward as a suggestion, but it may not be practical. Is there any reason why a small additional sum should not be charged to the public on Sundays, which it would be known to those who attended the cinema was specifically for this charitable purpose? Thereby the cost would be passed on to those who patronised the cinema on Sunday. That is all I wish to say. I felt that the point of view of the charities which are helped by this arrangement ought to be put before your Lordships.
7.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, quite a number of different points have been raised in this debate. The mover of the Motion has made a thorough-going demand for the abolition of the levy and, as I understand it, that is the only attitude which would meet with the support of those whose views he represents. However,
1152
in the course of the discussion, a certain number of criticisms of a lesser nature have been levelled at the levy—its want of uniformity over the country, the alleged lack of suitable objects, and other points of one sort or another. There has even emerged, as there always does on every debate, a demand that the taxpayer and the ratepayer should shoulder the burden instead of the cinema industry.
I begin by saying that there is not the smallest chance of my recommending that—and I hope that I shall have the support of your Lordships in not doing so. We must be realistic on these things. It does not seem to me in the least desirable that either the local rates or the taxpayer should bear this burden. The choice would have to be between abolition and retention or some form of revision. I am bound to say that I can see no prospect of Government legislation on this matter either this Session or in the immediately foreseeable future. The reason is not, as my noble friend Lord Westwood suggested, any particular fear of the Government of any particular interest on one side or the other. On the contrary, the long tradition since 1932 has been that Governments have sought to be impartial in such matters, but I see, from the knowledge that I have of the pressure upon Parliamentary time, that there is not the smallest prospect of a measure of the kind contemplated being sponsored by the Government unless it was known to be so uncontroversial as to go through without discussion.
There are, I fear, other and more pressing things to be dealt with. If a noble Lord or some private Member in another place were to introduce a Private Member's Bill, the Government would, I think, undertake to scrutinise its terms; but, for reasons which I am about to give, based on an experience of twenty-five years, the view which the Government are bound to come to is that the chances of such a Bill becoming law without controversy would be very small indeed. Therefore, although we should not seek in any way to discourage such a measure, we should not like to encourage the enthusiasts for it to believe that it would stand a very easy prospect of passage through the Houses of Parliament.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I interrupt the noble Viscount for a moment, in order to follow him more closely? Surely the controversy is about the Sunday

1153
opening of cinemas, not about the paying of conscience money. There can be no controversy about that.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The view that Her Majesty's Government have is that controversy rages about every aspect of this topic, and will continue to do so, whatever course either the Government or private Members may take. I should have thought that the two speeches to which we have listened, from the right reverend Prelate and from my noble friend behind me, Lord Clifford, gave some support, even in this thinly attended House, for exactly the proposition which the Government believe to be true. Pragmatism is too often mistaken for hypocrisy, in this country and elsewhere. I am bound to say that my own approach to this matter is severely pragmatic. No one would suggest—at least I should not—that the law on Sunday observance in this country is, in this or in any other respect, ideally logical. It may be that some day we shall reach a unanimity of opinion in our ranks which will enable it to be made so, either in one direction or in another, but it is no good complaining to the Government about the confused state of public opinion upon this complicated and highly controversial subject.
The history of this matter is of some considerable importance in evaluating the cogency of some of the arguments which have been adduced. The general law is as stated by the mover of the Motion, that by the Act of 1780 places to which the public go for entertainment or amusement, and to which the public are admitted on payment, are prohibited by the Sunday Observance Act, 1780, from opening on Sunday. Sunday opening is, accordingly, a privilege. It is a privilege, I must remind your Lordships, not accorded at all to theatres, not accorded at all to music halls, dance halls, boxing, football and many other types of public entertainment. The cinema industry is u privileged exception to that general rule. They bought that privilege, as the right reverend Prelate told us, by a very hard bargain, which was driven, in circumstances that I will presently relate, with the opponents of Sunday opening, in another place in 1932. They now seek to be rid of the terms of the bargain which they hold to be inapplicable. It may be
1154
True—though I myself do not think it is—that there is an element of hypocrisy in suggesting that there should be a compulsory levy to charity on such occasions. If so, I am bound to say that I think the right reverend Prelate was right; that the element of hypocrisy was not necessarily introduced by the Church or the Sabbatarians, and certainly not by the Government of the day.
The situation which one is bound to say will be held, I think, by this and by any other Government, is this. When a compromise has been reached as a result of hard argument between hotly held points of view, it must inevitably be the inclination of any Government to leave things as they are, so long as the compromise remains workable and so long as there is no clear evidence that the matter has ceased to be controversial. Of course, I will report to my right honourable friend the viewpoints which have been expressed i1 this debate, and it may be, having regard to the strongly expressed views on bolt sides of the House, that he, too, will think that the matter has ceased to be controversial. Personally, I do not. I shall certainly not seek to persuade him that my view is right against those views of other noble Lords.
My own feeling is that this matter continues to be controversial in the precise way in which it was controversial in 1932. I must remind your Lordships that as recently as 1953 a Sunday Observance Bill was refused a Second Reading in another place by a large majority. The House of Commons and the House of Lords have proved singularly sensitive to measures of this kind, and it seems to me highly unlikely that any measure, whether sponsored by the Government or by a private Member, to eradicate what is alleged to be an injustice of this kind is likely to get through. I must point out that the charity contribution, such as it is, is paid out of profits. The horrible picture which the noble Lord, Lord Burden, painted, of a cinema industry faced with bankruptcy and saved from disaster only by the abolition of a levy which yields £400,000 a year out of profits, is not one which can bear any scrutiny at all. Where there are no profits there is no levy. It may be undesirable that the levy should be

1155
imposed, but if the industry were, in fact, liable to go bankrupt, it would not be prevented from doing so by the abolition of the levy.
The history of the matter is as follows—and I am bound to say that this is somewhat relevant, in view of the rather wild words that have been introduced about hypocrisy. After the passing of the Cinematograph Act, 1909, a number of local authorities, of which the London County Council was the chief, began to issue de facto licences, which turned out to be quite illegal, that cinemas should disregard the terms of the Sunday Observance Act. In so doing the Council imposed certain conditions. One of these conditions, at least in the case of the London County Council, was that an amount determined by the Council as representing the profit derived from the Sunday performances, should be paid to charity. In computing the profits the Council allowed as chargeable against receipts certain overhead expenses, such as rent, rates and so on, so that Sunday opening, based on the terms laid down by the Council, was to some extent financially advantageous to the cinema proprietors. The proprietors found themselves quite happy to fall in with this suggestion with that limitation, although no doubt they would have been even happier to open without the condition. They have, in fact, tended to open their cinemas on Sundays in increasing numbers ever since, and only last week, I think, another six localities were added to the distinguished list of those places which, largely on the initiative of the trade, had decided to go in for Sunday opening.
The result of that was that in 1930 the theatres, who felt themselves to be unfairly competed against by the cinemas, initiated litigation against the cinemas and the London County Council to prove that what was being done was illegal. They won their case in an action called The King v. the London County Council, ex parse the Entertainments Protection Association Limited, which the curious may find reported in The Times Law Reports. The result was that a Bill was introduced by the then Labour Government in April, 1931, called the Sunday Performances (Regulations) Bill which
1156
was given a Second Reading in the House of Commons on a free vote by a rather narrow majority, and was thereafter dropped by the succeeding National Government as it was thought that it would have no real chance of getting through. A sort of armistice or standstill arrangement was come to which enabled twelve months' reflection to be obtained by Parliament, and under the cover of this armistice a new Bill was produced in the following year for similar purposes. This Bill received a Second Reading by an even narrower majority than the first, and it was dropped later for the same reason—that it did not stand a chance of getting through.
It was then that negotiations began between the trade and the Sabbatarians, resulting in the compromise; and it was discovered that a Bill which provided as a condition that some part of the profit of the performance should be levied for charity and should be paid by the trade, would stand some chance of being passed. Such turned out to be the case, and the present Act received a Second Reading majority of 237 to 61, and now stands on the Statute Book.
Whether or not this is hypocrisy I am no judge. I know it was a compromise introduced by those who wanted to open their cinemas on Sundays. I am bound to say that I do not think there is anything particularly hypocritical that something which competes with the churches should contribute to a charity of some sort on Sundays. When I go to my place of assembly on a Sunday I undoubtedly pay a levy to charity—a man comes round with a plate or a little bag. I admit that I do not have to pay as a condition of the place being open, but it seems to me almost as obligatory in its own way. I never thought that it was conscience money, in the sense that I was being asked for something that I did not have to pay.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Viscount's contribution to charity, as he calls it, in church, goes to an object about which he knows; he knows what he is paying for. But the levy for the Sunday charity is something over which the

1157
exhibitor has no control in regard to which charity it goes.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord evidently attends a different place of worship from that to which I go, because I have not the faintest idea where the collection goes. I should indeed be reassured if I knew that in some cases the local authority was going to determine its objective. However, perhaps I was drawing a rather far-fetched analogy at this late hour, and I do not want to press it too far. There is the genesis of this matter. If we could have some indication that this question had ceased to be controversial, obviously it would be a fertile field for a law reform Bill which might be suitable to everybody and satisfy everybody.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked me about the prospect of an Amendment to the Cinematograph Films Bill. I think the noble Lord, Lord Burden, provided the answer to that. The Government could not contemplate such an Amendment during the passage of the Bill through another place without consultation with the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations and the London County Council. They have been consulted, and they all took the view that if a change is to be made in regard to a matter which is at present a fundamental part of the Sunday Entertainments Act, it would be inappropriate for it to be made in the Cinematograph Films Bill and it ought not to be made without time for proper consideration by the Associations and by the Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, also suggested a sort of Act of uniformity which would take away the local authorities' option and impose a general charge upon the industry, if a total abolition could not be effected. If it were pressed, obviously that is a matter which should be considered. The present view held by those who have been advising me in this matter is that it is most unlikely that such a general charge would be a lesser burden to the trade, and therefore it is unlikely that it would meet with, their approval. Certainly, the Government could not think of giving directions or making pointed suggestions to local authorities that they should
1158
follow a uniform practice of disregarding the law by imposing purely nominal charges. If Parliament wishes the law to be altered the law will be altered, but it does not rest with the Government of the day to dispense with the law by seeking to make it ridiculous.
My Louis, I am fully aware that the law on this subject is not very satisfactory, riot very logical, and has its origin in a series of Parliamentary bargains in another place to which neither the Government in general nor, I think, any member of it in particular were ever parties. I am always aware of the lameness, if I may use, the phrase, of saying that Parliamentary time cannot be made available, but noble Lords who have spent longer in this House than I have know very well that it is a perfectly genuine feature of our Parliamentary life. I myself utterly refuse to accept the view that there are no suitable charities. It may be that some local authorities are singularly ill-advised, or possibly uninspired in their choke of possible objectives. If they cared to get in touch with me privately, I could suggest hundreds of objectives which could absorb many times the £400,000 which apparently is available every year. However that may be, the only thing my noble friend has to do is to persuade public opinion. I shall certainly not endeavour to stop his doing so, because there is nothing I should welcome more than unanimity of public opinion on Sunday observance; but I am bound to add that I do not see very much prospect of either his or my getting it.
7.21 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, at this late hour I certainly do not intend to detain your Lordships a moment longer than is necessary, but I should like, first of all, to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, on whatever side they have spoken. There is just one point that I should like to make, arising out of the speech of the right reverend Prelate. He seemed to think (at least that was the impression I had) that because a bargain was made in 1932 that law must go on for ever. I am quite sure that the noble and learned Viscount who has just replied would not subscribe to that theory. Laws are constant y being altered and constantly being brought up to date, owing to changing conditions and changing public opinion.

1159
The noble and learned Viscount made the point that he wanted to be satisfied that public opinion had sufficiently changed before he was prepared to do anything for us. I think that is a perfectly reasonable attitude. If this debate has done nothing else, it has ventilated very thoroughly viewpoints on both sides and has made Her Majesty's Government,
1160
who may possibly have gone to sleep on the matter for the last two years, think again. For that we should be grateful. In the meantime, I have pleasure in asking leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past seven o'clock.