Lords Sitting of 30 July 1957

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

  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
  2.35 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty The Queen, signed by her own hand. It is as follows:
  "I have received your Address praying that the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the International Tin Council) (Amendment) Order, 1957, be made in the form of the draft as laid before Parliament.
  "I will comply with your request."

  PROCEEDINGS BEFORE EXAMINING JUSTICES
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt. I beg to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can make any statement about the progress of the work of the Departmental Committee appointed to consider whether proceedings before examining justices should continue to take place in open court; and whether any restriction should be placed on the publication of reports of such proceedings.]
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced the membership and terms of reference of this Committee, which is under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Tucker, on June 4 last; and he has asked the Committee to complete its work with the minimum of delay. The Committee, which held its first meeting on June 25, has invited certain bodies and persons to submit evidence, and I understand that it will
  272
  be glad to receive memoranda of evidence from any others who may be in a position to help it. Evidence should be sent to the Secretary, Mr. B. C. Cubbon, Home Office, Whitehall, as soon as possible, and in any case not later than October 1 next. I welcome this opportunity of calling attention to the importance of the Committee's terms of reference, and express the hope that all those bodies and persons who are contemplating offering evidence will undertake its preparation as a matter of urgency.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Viscount for that reply, and express the hope that we shall have a Report from this Committee as quickly as in the case of another Committee which the noble and learned Viscount set up?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for those words. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Tucker, and his colleagues will do their utmost to make their Report a speedy one, but I should like to emphasise what I have said: that they are dependent on getting information from persons who are interested. As there was a great deal of public interest and newspaper interest before this Committee was established, I hope that those who are interested will now rally round and help the Committee.

  THE UNITED NATIONS AND HUNGARY
  2.39 p.m.
  LORD BIRDWOOD: 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 they are prepared to press for the immediate recall of the General Assembly of the United Nations to consider the Hungarian question, in view of the grave deterioration in conditions in that country.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, since the publication of the Report of the United Nations Special Committee on Hungary, Her Majesty's Government have consistently

  273
  advocated the recall of the General Assembly of the United Nations as soon as practicable to consider both the Special Committee's Report and the current state of affairs in Hungary. The reconvention of the Assembly does not, however, depend on Her Majesty's Government alone. As the majority of the Governments who wish to see the Hungarian question considered further by the United Nations favour a meeting in September, that appears to be the earliest date at which an effective debate could take place.
  LORD BIRDWOOD:My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his reply, I want to ask this supplementary question—that is, whether he can give your Lordships any reason why it is impossible to reconvene the General Assembly before September.
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, the majority of the sponsors of the resolution favoured a meeting in September, a view which was based largely on the practical difficulties of assembling a number of Ministers and senior delegates in New York until that date.
  LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, may I ask one more question? Is the reason that senior Ministers cannot be reassembled because Ministers are on holiday?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot give the reasons why the Ministers of Governments other than our own are unable to be present. I have no doubt at all that our own Minister concerned could be present even though the Assembly met earlier.

  PROPOSED AYRSHIRE TECHNICAL COLLEGE
  2.41 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: 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 they are aware that Ayrshire County Council are seeking, by means of a compulsory purchase order, to acquire, for the purpose of erecting a technical college, a piece of land in the centre of Kilmarnock which has been conserved for many years by Kilmar
  274
  nock Estates, the owners thereof, by arrangement with the town planning authority, namely, Kilmarnock Town Council, as an open space, notwithstanding that Kilmarnock Estates have offered to make a gift to the county council of a suitable alternative site for the erection of the new technical college and whether Her Majesty's Government consider that in these circumstances any action can now be taken which would avoid the waste of public money which would be incurred in the holding of a public inquiry into the proposed compulsory purchase order, and enable the gift of land to be accepted so that erection of the new technical college may proceed forthwith.]
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware that Ayr County Council have made a compulsory purchase order to enable them to acquire land upon which to build a new technical college. It is also known that the owners of the land described in that order have lodged objections to the order, and that they have offered to make a gift to the County Council of an alternative piece of land on which to build the technical college. But since the County Council have not stated that they are willing to withdraw the order, and since the objections to it have not been withdrawn, the Secretary of State, as confirming authority, is obliged by the Acquisition of Land Act, 1947, to afford to the disputing parties an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed for the purpose. An inquiry is therefore to be held at Kilmarnock on September 19, 1957.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his comprehensive Answer, and while understanding that in this case the public local inquiry must proceed, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that, as is well known throughout the burgh, Kilmarnock Estates have been very helpful in this matter and are most anxious to see a new technical college built in Kilmarnock; and that the Scottish Department of Health, with every desire to be helpful—and I stress that point—suggested that discussions on the matter might, with advantage, take place between Kilmarnock Estates, the county council

  275
  and the town planning authority—namely, Kilmarnock Town Council—but that any such discussions were rejected by the county council?
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: Yes, my Lords.

  PESTS ACT, 1954 (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Pests Act, 1954, in respect of the spreading of myxomatosis; and to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a,—(Lord Dynevor.)
  On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order, which is in the customary form, be approved.
  Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Smallburgh, be approved.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  AGRICULTURE (POWER TAKEOFF) REGULATIONS. 1957
  LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM rose to move, That the Draft Agriculture (Power Take-off) Regulations, 1957, reported from the Special Orders Committee on July 24, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, as both these sets of Regulations, the Agriculture (Power Take-off) Regulations, 1957, and the Agriculture (Ladders) Regulations, 1957, arise under the same Act, it may be convenient for your Lordships to discuss them together. As many of your Lordships will know, the power take-off of a tractor and the power takeoff shaft on an agricultural machine can, if they are not guarded, cause serious injuries to people who accidentally come in contact with them. If I may be permitted a quick personal digression, I trust that your Lordships will grant me a little
  276
  extra authority in mentioning that, because I happen to be one who has caught his coat-tail in an unguarded power takeoff, though, fortunately, suffering no more than a certain amount of fright. On an average four or five people are killed in this way each year.
  The object of the Power Take-off Regulations is to secure that proper guards are fitted to tractors and machines used on holdings where there are employed workers, to whose protection the Regulations are limited by the enabling Act. They will require a shield, strong enough to take the weight of a man, extending above and on both sides of the power take-off, and a guard extending, all round the shaft, along as much of its length as is not protected from contact by other parts of the machine; but on existing machines with shafts less than two feet from the ground a less complete guard in the shape of a deep inverted "U" is permitted. The Regulations will come into operation on dates ranging from one year to two years hence, the periods having been determined after consultation with the interests concerned, to allow enough time for the solution of design and supply problems.
  The Ladders Regulations are directed to ensuring that ladders used by agricultural workers are of sound construction, properly maintained, and used in sensible ways. If the Regulations are approved, they will come into effect three months after they are made. It may surprise some of your Lordships to learn that, on an average, there are three fatal accidents each year arising from the use of ladders in agriculture. Responsibility for seeing that machines or ladders are not used otherwise than in accordance with the Regulations is placed both on the employer and on the worker. Farmers cannot be expected or required to exercise the close supervision over their workers that is possible in factories, and we consider that it would be unfair to place on them the entire responsibility for offences against the Regulations. I have attempted to deal with the principal features of the Regulations, but shall be pleased to answer any question that may be asked I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Draft Agriculture (Power Take-off) Regulations, 1957, reported from the Special Orders Committee on 24th July, be approved.—(Lord Chesham.)
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have no doubt that these Regulations are required. The number of casualties that the noble Lord mentioned is not staggering in relation to the whole of the agricultural population; nevertheless, it is something that ought to be properly protected against. The only point I want to raise is why the Regulations are confined to farms upon which persons are employed. Is there not a case for the widow of a farmer who loses his life in this way? Why should not that farmer have to protect his machine, even for his own sake and for the sake of his family? Why is that exception made?
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, if I may take first, quite briefly, the point of the number of accidents, I would say that the number of fatal casualties does, fortunately, seem somewhat on the small side. I was unable to give the figures for other casualties, because I am afraid they are not available. In this connection, incidentally, we hope from now on gradually to institute a system which will give fuller returns on these matters. So far as the other farms are concerned, I trust the noble Viscount will not mind if I have to take what appears to be refuge in a somewhat legalistic point, but it is a fact that the enabling Act makes it impossible to make Regulations for any other sort of farm than that on which agricultural workers are employed.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Does that not mean that there ought to be an amendment of the Act? That does not seem to me to meet the point. I can see the difficulty that you have to work under a certain Statute, but that point ought to be met. In dealing with this kind of matter one has to bear in mind not only the ordinary human factor—one wants to do the best possible to protect each unit—but the business side as well. When you are dealing with general farm insurance, the rates quoted by companies depend a good deal on whether or not people are working with protected machinery. All that ought to be taken into account and proper provision made by the State, so that all machinery of this kind is protected; otherwise differential rates will be quoted in different parts of the country for different classes of machinery used.
  278
  Cannot we have this matter put really straight?
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I can see that there is considerable force in what the noble Viscount says. But, fortunately or unfortunately, the fact remains that we are dealing at the moment with this particular Order which cannot be widened to that extent. We have widened it as far as possible to include everything that may properly be included under the Act. In the circumstances the, only thing I can do is to make sure that the noble Viscount's words are passed on to my right honourable friend.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  AGRICULTURE (LADDERS) REGULATIONS, 1957
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that these regulations be approved.
  Moved, That the Draft Agriculture (Ladders) Regulations, 1957, reported from the Special Orders Committee on July 24, be approved.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  WHITE FISH SUBSIDY (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME, 1957
  2.52 p.m.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, I rise to move that this Scheme, which was reported from the Special Orders Committee on July 24, be approved. There follows a similar Motion on the Order Paper about the Herring Industry Scheme, and it may be acceptable and convenient to your Lordships if I deal with both Schemes together. The Schemes replace the two subsidy schemes at present in force and, subject to your Lordships' approval, will each run for a period of twelve months, beginning, in the case of the white fish subsidy on August 1, and in the case of herring on September 1.
  The White Fish Scheme makes no change in the subsidy rates. The only change of subsidies it makes is that those vessels which are paid a subsidy of so much per day will now be eligible to receive the subsidy for every day in the year they spend at sea, instead of, as

  279
  at present, on a maximum of 300 days. The Herring Scheme increases the rates of subsidy by, on an average, about a sixth. The rate for vessels under 40 feet in length is increased from 3d. to 3½d. per stone of herring landed; for motor vessels between 40 and 80 feet in length, the rate is increased from £5 10s. 0d. to £6 10s. 0d. per day; for motor vessels between 80 and 140 feet (which is the maximum size on which subsidy is payable), the rate is raised from £6 to £8 per day; and for steam vessels the increase is from £9 to £10 per day.
  The Scheme also makes one other change. Hitherto, no vessel has been able to receive both the white fish and the herring subsidy in respect of the same voyage. This, I think your Lordships will agree, is right and proper where the vessels are paid so much per day, since that payment is intended to be related to a whole day's fishing. But it has been represented to us that this arrangement is unduly harsh for the small vessels, which are paid entirely on the amount of fish they catch. The Herring Scheme therefore provides that vessels under 40 feet in length which receive a subsidy of so much per stone of herring and white fish may qualify for both subsidies if they catch both kinds of fish during the same voyage.
  I should like to say a word or two further about the White Fish Scheme. It affects two kinds of vessels, the near- and middle-water trawlers which are over 70 feet in length, and which we call the inshore vessels, nearly all of which are under that length. In both cases, since the rates were last fixed we have received evidence of substantial increases in cost. In the case of the inshore vessels, however, we are satisfied that no substantial problem arises, for the earnings of inshore fishermen in both Scotland and England have risen substantially over the past few years. The English fishermen have not asked for any increase in subsidy, and while the Scottish fishermen have done so, it is evident that theirs is a thriving and expanding industry, for the number of vessels has increased by one-sixth and the catch by one-third in the past two years. In these circumstances we do not think they have any real claim to more subsidy.
  The position is more difficult with the near- and middle-water trawlers. Here,
  280
  costs have increased very considerably, the main items being coal, oil fuel and wages. Earnings are also increasing, but on the figures which the trawler owners have supplied about operations in 1956, it looks as though their losses at some ports may be substantially greater than last year. In face of these facts, the decision not to increase the subsidy may seem harsh. We have felt, however, that we could not increase the white fish subsidy rates without abandoning the conception, endorsed by successive Governments since 1950, that subsidy is a temporary measure to tide the industry over short-term difficulties.
  I might remind your Lordships that we have been giving grants and loans since 1953 to replace old vessels by new ones. That apart, we have spent about £10 million on subsidy since that date. The White Fish and Herring Industries Act earlier this year made an additional £7 million to £9 million available, but endorsed the principle of a temporary subsidy ending in 1961 or 1963 and implied that it ought to be tapering off soon. If the subsidies were increased now, it is clear that this objective would not be achieved. And in fact we hope things may not turn out quite so badly as the trawler owners fear. The average earnings per day at sea of Scottish steam trawlers were 18 per cent. higher in the first five months of this year than last. Nevertheless, progress towards a modern fleet is very uneven between the different ports, and proportionately fewer modern vessels have been built in Scotland than in England. Moreover, some of the new vessels that have been built in Scotland do not seem to have been very successful so far. We think, however, that these should be temporary difficulties and the evidence available does not justify abandoning the idea that the fishing industry should, before very long, stand on its own feet. In all the circumstances, we have decided to leave the white fish subsidy as it is.
  On the herring side, the picture is somewhat different. Herring fishermen's costs, like those of their white fish colleagues, are increasing. But whereas on the white fish side there is reason to suppose that earnings are also likely to increase in the coming subsidy year, the evidence for this view is less certain in the case of herring. It is the purpose of the herring subsidy to attract vessels back to herring

  281
  fishing and thus restore a better balance in the interests of both sides of the industry; and we have therefore felt it proper to make some increase in the herring subsidy although no corresponding increase is being made to the white fish side.
  In conclusion may I refer briefly to the decision announced in another place to hold an Inquiry into the fishing industry. While we are confident that our policy is the right one, progress towards a modern fleet varies greatly from port to port. We have therefore thought it desirable to set up a Committee to assess the size and pattern of an economic fishing industry in relation to developments in fishing and the marketing of fish and to assess the implications. The Inquiry will cover all sections of the industry, including the unsubsidised distant water trawlers. It will provide a comprehensive review and, we hope, show how we can get a fully efficient fleet. In the meantime, pending the full examination of the affairs of the industry which the Committee of Inquiry, in collaboration with the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board, will be able to make, the subsidies are an important practical measure of help. Accordingly, I trust that these Schemes will meet with your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1957, reported from the Special Orders Committee on 24th July, be approved.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
  LORD MATHERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, who has been dealing with the production side of this industry, what impact it is expected the Schemes will have on the consumers, and what benefit will accrue to them?
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: If we obtain a fully efficient fleet we hope that the consumers will benefit. That is the object of the Inquiry.
  LORD MATHERS: I am afraid I have not made myself clear. Prices have been rising recently. Is it expected that, because of these measures, prices will be limited?
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: Really, my Lords, that all depends on the size of the catch and a good many other things, including the state of the weather; and it would be quite impossible for me to give the noble Lord any assurance on this point.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, with the increasing capital the State is continuing to put into this most desirable industry, will the Inquiry that is about to take place include a proper examination of the marketing practice and facilities, both at port and points of distribution, because there seems still to be an enormous gap between the price per cran (or whatever the measurment of the particular fish is) and the actual price per pound to the consumer. I agree that these grants are desirable—they should increase fishing production—but it would be satisfactory if we could be assured that this will all be inquired into with a view, especially, to getting a wider use of white fish and a better deal for the consumers. I hope that this point will be included in the terms of reference of the Committee.
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: I think the noble Lord may be satisfied as to that. The words I actually used were:
  "to assess the size and pattern of an economic fishing industry in relation to developments in fishing and the marketing of fish …"
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Do not forget the consumer.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  HERRING SUBSIDY (UNITED KINGDOM) No. 2 SCHEME, 1957
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: I beg to move that this Scheme be approved.
  Moved, That the Herring Subsidy (United Kingdom) No. 2 Scheme, 1957, reported from the Special Orders Committee on July 24, be approved.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  HOUSING (PAYMENTS FOR WELLMAINTAINED HOUSES) (SCOTLAND) ORDER, 1957
  3.4 p.m.
  LORD STRATHCLYDE: I beg to move that this Order be approved. It is made under section 20 of the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957, to which the Royal Assent was given on July 17, 1957. The Order has been made as soon as possible after the passing of the Act so that the increased payments for which it provides, can become available at once instead of after the Summer Recess. I will try to explain what these payments are and why they should be increased. The Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, which consolidated provisions originally enacted in 1935, provides for special payments to be made by local authorities to the owners or occupiers of houses demolished in the course of slum clearance which, although unfit for habitation, have been well maintained. The payments are calculated on either of two bases, whichever is the more beneficial.
  The first of these, which is remaining unchanged, is the excess of five years' actual maintenance costs over the rateable value. The second of these bases, with which alone we are concerned here, measures the amount which might reasonably have been spent on such a house over the previous five years, by using multiples of the rateable value of the house. Since 1935 the rateable value of the kind of property involved in slum clearance has altered little, if at all, but the cost of maintenance has increased very considerably. In 1953 the Scottish Building Costs Committee reported that between 1939 and 1952 costs of repairs had increased by 200 per cent., and in order to allow of payments which more clearly reflect current costs it is necessary to increase the amounts by which rateable values are multiplied. The Order which is before the House accordingly provides for a three-fold increase in the multipliers. I should perhaps add that where the tenant has been responsible for the good maintenance of the house the payment goes to him.
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has consulted the Scottish local authority associations
  284
  on this matter, and they have raised no objection to the multipliers for which the Order provides. I would remind your Lordships that a corresponding increase in the multipliers in respect of England and Wales was brought about last October in an Order made under the Slum Clearance (Compensation) Act, 1956. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Housing (Payments for Well-Maintained Houses) (Scotland) Order, 1957, reported from the Special Orders Committee on 24th July, be approved.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  FINANCE BILL
  3.7 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, as your Lordships will see from the Order Paper, we have two important debates for to-day, and a number of your Lordships have put their names down for a speech on one or the other of them, even if we have no further speeches from any uncovenanted source on the second. I am wondering, therefore, whether it would not be for the convenience of the House (from my small inquiries I gather rather that it would) were I to move this Bill formally and reserve the remarks which I would desire to make upon it until I have heard the observations that your Lordships wish to make. I feel myself that would be a convenient course. By the time we reach the end of July it might be assumed that any Member of either House of Parliament is in general aware of the provisions of the Finance Bill and would have his own observations he would desire to make. Therefore, with the permission of the House, I would desire formally to move this Bill be now read a second time.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think one has a fair knowledge of what has been the general finance policy, but the Finance Bill is another matter, and those of us who have been busy on other business while the other place has been considering this measure would like some explanations. I would quote one instance—

  285
  exactly how Clause 2 is going to work, and points of that kind. If we do not have that at the beginning of the debate, not very much backbone is added to the debate.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I should desire to fall in with your Lordships' wishes in this respect. The noble Viscount now wishes for a special explanation of Clause 2. Of course, I shall be in a position lo give it, but there may be other noble Lords who have questions about other clauses, and I think your Lordships would generally wish to be spared an exposition of the Government brief on the other individual clauses. I still think the convenient course would be if I formally moved the Second Reading and then took account of any queries your Lordships might make about individual clauses hereafter.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, it would be a dangerous precedent if Ministers were to come down here and say that, because everybody knows about it, there is no need to explain and defend it. There may be cases which nobody knows. No one knows better than the noble Viscount how to make a case, but I think if this course were to be pursued it would be a very unusual Parliamentary procedure.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Hear, hear! We strongly object.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My information is that this is not only not a departure from precedent but is in accordance with the general practice of the House when it is desired to hold a debate of a general economic character. I did not see the noble Viscount, but I saw one of his distinguished colleagues, and I understood from that colleague that this would be a convenient course. I wonder whether the noble Viscount would not reconsider his attitude on this matter.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: No.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If he desires me to say a few words by way of introduction, I will certainly do so, but I certainly do not propose to go right through the whole Bill, because I feel certain that if I did that I should not be acting in accordance with the wishes of the House.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I think that that is a most objectionable standpoint to take up. After all, we are sitting as a House of Parliament, and here we have a Bill of considerable importance which is very complex in some of its provisions. When a Minister of the Crown is here to move the Second Reading of the Bill, I think we are entitled to have a proper explanation of the Bill. It is not to be assumed that every one of us is so bright, as somebody else may be, as to know all about the clauses. I consider that it is the duty of the Minister to sec that the Bill is properly explained.
  LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Viscount has just said. Noble Lords on these Benches have not been approached on any such matter. A further point is that, if the noble Viscount is going to make his exposition at the end of the debate, noble Lords will have no opportunity of raising points, because, by tradition of the House, we do not speak twice on Second Reading.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I say frankly that I am surprised at the attitude of the noble Viscount. My only desire in this matter arose from the knowledge that two important matters were down for discussion to-day, and I had thought, perhaps unduly modestly, that the House would desire to be spared two speeches by me. As objection has been raised, I shall, of course, say a word or two by way of opening, but I certainly do not intend a full exposition of the Bill. If I have erred in this matter, I say at once that I shall be sincerely sorry if the House should feel me guilty of any discourtesy to the House. I had thought I was following the desires of noble Lords in being concise at the beginning, and I shall perforce have to be concise. If I have, in fact, misjudged the wishes of the House in this matter, I have done so in good faith and not with any desire to treat the matter frivolously. It so happens that my own judgment in this matter was fortified by that of a very prominent member of the Party opposite, and I thought that probably, having taken his opinion, I should be acting correctly. But if the House and the noble Viscount desire me to say a word or two by way of opening, I will certainly do so.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May I say at once that I do not depart at all from my request that the Ministerial Bench should follow what I consider to be the proper practice on the Second Reading of a very important draft Statute. I think that that is the right of Parliament. To promise to say a few words in substitution for opening the debate by a speech does not meet me at all. It may not be possible that the noble Viscount can now change from the course that he has set himself. If that is the case, then I shall be obliged to put a Motion on the Paper as to the future process to be followed in this House upon Second Readings.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords. I am sorry if the noble Viscount should feel that I have in any way offended against his view of what Parliament should require on these occasions. The advice I have received—and this is the first occasion on which I have had to deal with this particular matter—was that a formal speech by way of opening was customary in this House. I may be entirely in error, but I still feel that there is no particular reason, from anything the noble Viscount has said, to believe that I was wrong. Therefore, whilst putting myself, of course, entirely in the hands of the House in desiring to be absolutely reasonable in this respect. T would proceed along the course which I have outlined. If the noble Viscount feels after discussion of the matter with his noble friends that I have erred, obviously he must put down his Motion, which we should then be happy to discuss. But I think, in fact, some of his noble friends may consider that I have pursued a reasonable course and, in spite of the noble Viscount's serious strictures upon me, have attempted to pursue a proper course in the matter.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That course has not been very carefully pursued if neither of the Leaders of the Opposition Parties has been consulted.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I was advised that this was the ordinary course; otherwise, if I had been contemplating a departure in any way. I should have made certain that the Leaders of the Opposition Parties were consulted. Personally,
  288
  I still think that the course which I proposed was the advisable one, because, from such experience as I have had, the Second Reading of the Finance Bill has been treated invariably as an occasion for a general economic debate in which the widest possible subjects have been introduced. I have already had, for instance, from the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, notice that he will require me to answer at length upon the financing of the nationalised industries below the line. Other noble Lords may wish to speak about inflation and the general economic situation. I think it would be an intolerable imposition on this House if the Minister, in introducing the Finance Bill, should have to go clause by clause through a very elaborate Bill, most of which is repeated from time to time, instead of guiding the debate, as I had hoped to do, into general channels of economic policy where I had thought it might pursue a useful purpose. I still believe that if the matter were taken to a Division of the House, that is the view that it would take.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The noble Viscount can always do that. He has the strength.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Viscount does not always, I think, take into account the opinion of other Members, even of his own Party.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, as a humble member of the noble Viscount's Party, may I ask the noble Viscount opposite to desist from trying to stir up subversion on this side of the House?
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that it is quite unnecessary to try to stir up subversion in the Party opposite. It stirs itself up without the smallest difficulty; and not the worst exponent of the art is the noble Viscount himself.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The noble Viscount opposite has no right in this House to make a personal reflection, which is without any foundation at all.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I certainly did not intend to make any personal reflection upon the noble Viscount but if he would take the opinion of his

  289
  numerous and no doubt united supporters I think he would find that in this one instance some of them do not agree with him. At any rate, since the noble Viscount desires me to say a word, I shall say a word or two.
  All I desire to say by way of introducing this Bill is this. This Budget must be viewed in the light of two separate considerations. The first is the pattern of Budgets which have taken place in the last seven years. It must not, therefore, be viewed in isolation as a single act of policy; and, in the second place, it must be viewed in relation to the economic situation in which we find ourselves. As regards the first, the Budget is the latest, and not I hope the last, of a series of Budgets the general tenor of which has been to reduce the burden of taxation on the people. The burden of taxation which we found when we entered office was well above 30 per cent. of the gross national product. It has now fallen well below 30 per cent. of the gross national product. In point of fact, if the reductions in taxation were quantified in point of pounds, and we were to seek to recover from the country, with the greater gross national product which it now possesses, the yield Of taxation which was being recovered from the country by the Party opposite, we should now be drawing from the country a revenue by way of taxation of something of the order of £1,000 million more. To my mind, that is in itself a strong justification of the policy adopted by successive Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer by way of fiscal change.
  In particular, they have greatly reduced the burden of direct taxation. I have a long and impressive list of the reductions in direct taxation since 1951. There are some people who would seek to make this Budget an isolated example of complaint—for instance, that in this Budget at last, after seven years, something has been done for the higher ranges who pay the additional imposition of surtax. So far as I am concerned. I see nothing whatever to apologise for in that provision. In 1952 we made reductions in income tax estimated to cost £230 million in a full year, and we made reductions in profits tax estimated to cost £100 million in a full year. In 1953–54 we made further reductions in income tax estimated to cost £140 million in a full year, and we restored initial allowances to the extent of £85 million in a full year.
  290
  In 1955–56 we made further reductions in income tax estimated to cost £150 million, and in 1956 we made reliefs on savings estimated to cost £50 million. In this year we have increased child allowances so as to cost £½ million to the Revenue. We have given old age relief; we have extended earned income relief, and we have increased investment allowances and made other variations in indirect taxation and in other duties, We consider that in this long pattern of taxation relief, upon which we have been embarked from the beginning, there is nothing whatever mean or improper in adding at the tail end of the queue the unfortunate surtax payer.
  I, as Minister of Education, am constantly urging the public to view, as a matter of supreme importance, the conferring upon the entire population of adequate educational opportunities, amongst which opportunities the advance of technological and technical knowledge are the most important. When I took office six months ago I received from my predecessor a plan, the purpose of which has been to double the output of our advanced technical colleges within ten years and to go on expanding thereafter. I ask the House, what kind of future can these young men and women look forward to? What sort of earnings are they going to receive at the end of their years of training and discipline?
  Noble Lords opposite tend, I think, to regard the surtax payer as a wealthy person who exists at the expense of the community. But I look forward to the future for these young men and young women whom we are now engaged in educating. I look forward to a future for them in which earnings of £2,000 a year, the surtax minimum, will be relatively small; to a time in which they can look forward, with a general rise in the standard of life in this country, to earnings well above the surtax minimum. Those careers are now open to young men and women of all classes, thanks to the improvement of our education. How long, may I ask, is the Party opposite, which objects to these reliefs in taxation, to make itself the Party of mediocrity—to say that it wants ultimately to penalise the young men and women who undergo long discipline and training? We, at any rate, are not content with that position. Let me warn the Party opposite quite seriously about this. In point of fact, if we do

  291
  not provide in this country a proper opportunity for these young men and women getting university degrees, and passing out of different technical colleges and colleges of advanced technology, they will be "raided" and tempted away from this island by other countries who will know how to appreciate their services.
  This, then, is the Budget which has received the kind of attack which says that what we are doing is to seek to give preference to the wealthy. On the contrary, we are seeking in this country to give opportunity for all, and especially the qualified; and I must tell the Party opposite, in no unmistakable terms, that if they continue to identify themselves with mediocrity, and always assert that those who have qualifications and who have undergone training must suffer some penalisation because of their qualifications and because they want to take their share of the things to which their qualifications entitle them, they will, in fact, destroy themselves quite certainly as a great Party. At any rate, we shall seek to persuade them that their course is neither right nor popular.
  The only other point which I think has come into general consideration in this matter has been the choice which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made of budgeting for a surplus of £468 million, distributing £100 million by way of taxation relief and retaining the rest as a Budget surplus. The justification for that decision is not far to seek. The basis, which I shall seek to elaborate more completely, perhaps at the end of the debate, can usefully be stated at this stage in a few words. The key to the development of a free society in the modern world is investment—investment in the public sector and investment in the private sector. The balance which has been struck by the Chancellor of the Exchequer between £100 million of tax relief and the rest in a Budget surplus is designed to meet the investment in the public sector of finance. It seems to me that this is an extremely prudent course for him to have taken.
  I should like to add a word or two, if I may, about the general situation in which we find ourselves, then I will leave this Bill, with its individual provisions, to the House, on the lines which I outlined to begin with. In the first place, I
  292
  think we must admit that, in order to deal with a disease it is first of all necessary to analyse the cause, and to remove it. The situation in regard to inflation in which we find ourselves is one the cause of which is not too far to seek. We have been, as I believe, living permanently since 1945 in a high cost economy; I myself do not think that that is a bad thing. We are living in a high price economy; I do not think that that is a bad thing. We are living in an economy where men demand, and receive, high wages; I do not think that that is a bad thing. But the events which have taken place over the last eighteen months constitute an increase in the wage bill to the nation of over £900 million, of which fully £800 million remained after taxation, without any comparable increase in production.
  The eighteen months through which we have passed were designed as an eighteen months in which there should be a period of investment. We have succeeded in turning them into a period of investment, and we have used the last eighteen months to increase our productive capacity. I myself believe that we are on the verge of a great increase in production based on that increase in productive capacity. Therefore, I do not share to the full the alarms which have been expressed about the inflationary situation, tiresome and embarrassing as it has been in the last few months. But I must say that in each case rises in wages and salaries must in future bear some relation to production. I am not prepared to concede the view that any particular group of people are entitled, as of right, before any increase in the product of industry has been established, to demand for themselves a larger slice of what exists. That is not, to quote the words of a gentleman who speaks frequently out of doors
  "to defend the workers' standard of living".
  It is, in fact, to undermine the workers' standard of living—indeed, it is to undermine the standard of living of all the members of the community.
  My Lords, the Budget, as I see it, has two main functions in a modern society. The first is to raise the necessary revenue for public purposes, and the second is to provide—so far as a Government can provide it—an economic policy which will secure stability and prosperity for the

  293
  country for which it is designed. I am able to commend this Finance Bill from both points of view. I would only add this: I do not think it is wise for people to delude themselves about the source of our present distresses. I am not myself prepared to be one of those to complain of the recent increase in the prices of nationalised services or of Government services like the Post Office. I believe that the alternative would be dishonest finance, and I do not regard dishonest finance as a means of obtaining an honest currency. I am here, therefore, to defend the economic policy of Her Majesty's Government. I have spoken at such short length in response to the noble Viscount and I would, with respect, reserve my further comments until I have heard what he has to say.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.(Viscount Hailsham.)
  3.32 p.m.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, you will realise that I am not a person who delights in Party controversy in this House; I am not a person who wishes to add additional acrimony to a debate. And I will add this: that I always have a great admiration for the noble and learned Viscount who illumines our debates in this House with wit and with a certain amount of wisdom and general sagacity. But I am quite sure he will forgive me, after his vigorous speech, if I say that the speech which he has delivered in opening the Second Reading of the Finance Bill is about the most extraordinary speech that I have ever heard a Minister make from the Benches opposite in introducing a Government measure. Instead of defending the Bill which he is proposing to move, he attacks the Party on this side of the House who, up to that moment, had made no remarks at all except to express the wish that he would describe the Bill before them. The noble and learned Viscount put up an Aunt Sally, which he said was the Party opposite to his, and proceeded to pelt it, if I may say so, with rotten eggs. I cannot feel that, when he comes to read his speech in retrospect, he will have that admiration for his own achievements which on other occasions he rightly enjoys.
  Having said that, I do not propose to follow the noble and learned Viscount into a discussion which ranged over the
  294
  last five or six years in which he attacked what he alleged was the policy of our Party. The noble and learned Viscount is not entitled to assume that we on these Benches in this House are simply mouthpieces of Back Benchers in another place, and on a suitable occasion we will give our own views as to our policy on finance and will deal with the arguments which he puts forward. Quite clearly, however, that opportunity is not to-day, and I propose to deal with one isolated matter, because I believe that it is a question which is occupying the minds not only of Members of this House but of all people who think at all about finance and, indeed, in some degree, of the mass of the people of this country. That is, the question of inflation. Perhaps on that subject the noble and learned Viscount will deliver his post mortem speech at the end, in some answer to our queries, instead of making it at the beginning of a debate, for which it seemed to me inappropriate.
  I feel that it would be a waste of your Lordships' time if I were to deal at any length with any other matter. Your Lordships are well aware that we in this House are not allowed to alter one comma of the Finance Bill, still less to reject it in toto; but we are allowed—and it is our right and duty—to discuss large financial issues; and I select this particular matter of inflation which seems to me of such vital importance to our country at the present time. No one who has even a smattering of knowledge of finance and economics can be in any doubt today that the body politic of this nation is infected with the germ of inflation, and those who have made any study of this disease are rightly fearful less it should get completely out of control and become a rampant fever.
  The facts are not really in dispute. It is only necessary to go back a few days in our history to call attention to what is happening. Coal has gone up; gas prices are up; bus fares are to rise; the cost of steel has been increased; postal charges have gone up 10 per cent., 20 per cent. and 30 per cent., and an extra £42 million is being collected on postal charges as a whole which go into the Exchequer. I think everybody agrees that rents are going to be higher, though by how much may be a matter of doubt. Some people think they will only go up slightly, while others think they will go up enormously;

  295
  but that they are going up is, I believe, a matter of common agreement. Salaries and wages are being raised and in every one of these things—whether they be goods or services—we are not going to get a larger packet for our money. We are not going to get better quality for our money. We are going to get the same article and we are going to have to pay more for it.
  In that connection I should like to tell your Lordships of what I saw of inflation in the period between the wars when I was twice in Germany. I well remember what happened on those two visits. On the first occasion I went there for about ten days. Travelling in a tramcar in one city (I forget whether it was Berlin or Munich) I saw that the notice in the tram-car showed that the minimum fare had gone up from 80 pfennigs to I mark—that is, 100 pfennigs. On the day I left, ten days later, there was a notice in the car saying that the minimum fare would be increased from 100 pfennigs to 120 pfennigs. That was the inflation which was there during my first visit. I went again a year or two later, when an entirely different state of inflation had been reached. No prices were given for anything, but a fixed number of marks was quoted. In order to find the price that one had to pay, whether for a cab, a tram-car fare, a theatre ticket or whatever it might be, one had a multiplier; and if the figure displayed was 4 marks and the multiplier one million, you paid 4 miilion marks. And every day—later on almost every hour—the multiplier changed. On Monday morning it was 1,500,000; on Monday evening it was, perhaps, 1,600,000. Next morning it was 1,800,000, and you multiplied that by the figure on the taxi or the car or whatever it might be. That was what was happening in Germany. It was because everyone knew that inflation was taking place and was going to continue to take place.
  That is one of the worst things about inflation; and we are getting very nearly into that position to-day. People say: "I had better buy the article to-day; it will go up in price." I encountered something of that sort myself in a hosier's shop the other day. In effect they said: "You had better have it now, because if you don't the price next week may well
  296
  be higher: in a year or so, the price will certainly be higher." This is the worst thing that can happen with inflation—that people should take it for granted. That is what happened in Germany in between the wars, when inflation was taking place. Of course we have not got to anything like that point. I am not suggesting for one moment that we have galloping inflation. And we shall not get it if we are wise. The question we have to ask to-day is whether the Government are being wise in this matter and are staving off galloping inflation or are just disregarding it.
  There was a debate in another place at the end of last week. I have taken the trouble to read through the Report of the greater part of that debate in Hansard. In particular, I read the speeches of the two Government spokesmen—the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister himself. I am bound to say that they gave me a sense of complacency on the part of the speakers which I had not really anticipated they would exhibit. There was not a single suggestion of any fresh proposal whatsoever for dealing with inflation. The only action that was promised was the appointment of a Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes. If your Lordships choose to regard that as a vigorous and wise step, I am not going to quarrel with it. I have no quarrel with this Council, so long as it is composed of able, unprejudiced persons, drawn, perhaps, from both sides of industry, and from the ranks of intelligent and knowledgeable consumers, and so long as it is free to make its report untrammelled by too close terms of reference.
  I have no objection, if those conditions are fulfilled, to the setting up of such a Council, and I do not suppose that any of my noble friends on these Benches has either. But I do object if the Government think the appointment of this Council is a substitute for action, and that they can default while they are waiting for the Radcliffe Committee's Report and for, perhaps, one or two reports from this Council. I must remind your Lordships that these bodies have to take a great many facts into consideration, and, rightly, they have to study them for months. Sometimes the months will run well over twelve, and they may even run into years. If the Government are going to sit down and be complacent with the

  297
  degree of inflation which is already going on, waiting until these reports come along, then I say that I tremble for the consequences that will ensue.
  The Prime Minister referred to the prosperity of this country. I wonder whether the Prime Minister realises that in every period of inflation, and because of that inflation, there is a semblance of prosperity—at least among that section of the people which is in the active stream of life. Management is making windfall profits; workers and their wives are handling larger pay packets; Chancellors of the Exchequer are obtaining larger yields from the same rates of taxation. But unless inflation is scotched in its early stages, it grows into an uncontrollable monster which destroys even the semblance of prosperity. And in the meantime it completely dislocates the ordinary functions of a monetary economy. The old who have retired from industry and those who are living on pensions or other fixed incomes are reduced to penury. Contracts expressed in terms of money payments over a period of years become derisory. It is for this reason that we have the flight from the pound, and the fall in Consols and other gilt-edged securities to almost unprecedentedly low levels I was talking just now about my experience in Germany. I should like to add one more experience of a case in which inflation got completely out of hand. Some friends of mine were left a small legacy. They had two alternatives as to the use which they could make of it. The first was to put it rigidly and carefully away in the bank. The other alternative was to spend it on bottles of wine. They were rather luxurious in nature, and they chose the latter course. They drank the wine and then sold the glass bottles, and they were able to put into the bank proceeds which were considerably larger than the whole amount of the legacy which they had originally received.
  I say, therefore, that if the Government are so bankrupt of ideas about how to handle the inflation which already exists, and has existed for several years, they ought to have set up their Council a long lime ago. Before this they ought to have had its report and decided on which of its recommendations they would attempt to put into practice. Instead of that, what have they done all these
  298
  years? They have obstinately stuck to their old and discredited weapon of a high bank rate. That is a wooden policy, and time and again in this House I have inveighed against it. I regard it as entirely a mistake to believe that dear money is the most appropriate and, in fact, almost the only weapon to deal with the incipient signs of inflation.
  When. I started making these remarks several years ago—I think about five or six years ago—the whole of banking opinion, the whole of the sensible, orthodox opinion in this House, was against me. But in the course of those five or six years I have seen the whole climate of opinion change. I spoke on this subject some months ago, and I said that I thought opinion was veering round to my point of view. I venture to assert that to-day there are few who know anything about finance, however orthodox may be their connections, who do riot think that this dear money policy, as the main means, as almost the sole means, of dealing with inflation or any other financial irregularity in the country, has failed. I see it in all the financial papers and financial articles in the majority of papers in the country, and I assert that what I said originally as an isolated voice is now the opinion of the great mass of financiers in this country, including the bankers themselves.
  Even if the main stress of dealing with finance is going to rest on monetary controls, I would maintain that there are other, more selective, less expensive and more efficacious means than increasing the hank rate. Your Lordships must realise that radical changes have taken place in the handling of money since the nineteenth century, when undoubtedly raising the bank rate was an effective remedy. Let us just run over some of the great changes that have taken place. In the nineteenth century, we had a gold currency. To-day we have not only a paper currency but an inconvertible paper currency. Your Lordships know that on a pound note there is the most informative and careful promise that if you are not satisfied with the pound note you have, you have only to take it to the Bank of England and you can get in place of it £1—a precisely similar note to the one you have. That is the only promise which is seriously, or appears to be seriously, made on the piece of paper called a pound note.

  299
  Then we have developed the whole system of Treasury Bills in a way which did not exist at all before. We have had the Exchange Equalisation Account. We have had the nationalisation of the Bank of England and the power to issue directives to the joint stock banks. We have had the Capital Issues Committee, and Treasury Deposit Receipts. Even that is not all, because we have had a great change in the set-up of the Budget and the whole attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the financial system of this country. The time was when the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerned himself, and was expected to concern himself, almost solely with the finances of the State. He was not concerned with the economy and finance of the nation as a whole, only with that part of it which found its way into the resources of the Exchequer. But all that has gone by the board. He now recognises some responsibility for all the finances—investments and everything else—of the country, and, in particular, that part which appears below the line in the Budget Statement. That is perfectly right. The State cannot pursue its economy and finance in vacuo; it can pursue it only in the atmosphere and in the circumstances which occur owing to the economy as a whole.
  It does not really make a great deal of difference to the economy as a whole whether finances are raised by public subscription or paid for by the State raising a public loan or something of the sort in order to achieve its purpose. I notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone out of his way recently to do two things. Instead of financing the local authorities through the Local Loans Fund, he has now thrown them on the market. On the other hand, instead of the nationalised industries raising money directly he proposes to take them under his wing and pay them out of money from Treasury Bills, or whatever it may be he proposes to do. All that has some importance. It is partly window-dressing but the fact remains—and this is the point people who live in times of dear money do not fully realise—that there are three types of people who want to borrow money. There are the local authorities, the nationalised industries and the private sector of our industrial life.
  300
  So far as the local authorities are concerned, they have to spend their money, whether they have to pay 2, 3, 4 or 5 per cent. interest en it, because they need it for the purposes for which they exist. The nationalised industries could always be choked off altogether, but the net result would be detrimental to the country as a whole. The private sector says: "In times of inflation it makes practically no difference to us whether we pay 4, 5 or 6 per cent. interest, because we get it back in the increased value of the articles we buy to-day which in the course of a year or two can bring far more than they already bring". That is why dear money is a rusty old blunderbuss, which stayed up on the shelf for a long time and has been taken down by successive Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer and trotted out as a wonderful weapon which they can use with great purpose and effect. But the fact is that it has proved a hopeless failure in their hands and has not achieved the purpose for which it was intended and thought by them, and by a certain number of orthodox financiers, to be right and useful.
  I have said that there are other monetary policies besides the use of a high bank rate which could be used by the Government, and I adhere to that view. My Party—and I agree with them in this—recognise that monetary policy, even in its widest form, is still not the main method for dealing with inflation. The whole country, and particularly the representatives of the larger sections of the country, must be brought into cooperative support of Government policy. I am certainly not going to attack the Conservative Party, because the Conservative Party covers a large number of people of widely different views—that we have seen on many occasions lately—but I will attack that wing of the Conservative Party which holds the view, which I think to be not only improper but foolish, that inflation owes its origins solely to lack of restraint on the part of the working man. They say: "If only the trade union leaders would show a little restraint, what a different world we should live in! We should have an end of this talk of inflation. Everything would go smoothly. But these wretched trade unionists care nothing about the country; they only care about themselves. They

  301
  are agitators leading on their people to destruction."
  I wonder how far those members of the Party opposite have gone in thinking of what would be the case if the trade union leaders in this country were to lack restraint of any kind. They are in an exceedingly strong position at the present time. Suppose that where they now ask for 10s., the trade union leaders were to ask for £1, and where they now ask for £1. they were to ask for £2—and why should they not ask for £3 or £4 more a week? They could put the country to very great inconvenience in resisting their demands. They could hold the country up to ransom, and if they did, very likely they would be able to get a considerable part of their way. The fact that they do not do that and are prepared to settle on a reasonable, moderate basis is due almost exclusively to the restraint which is shown by trade union leaders at the present time. Of course, I do not propose to go too far. I am not going to suggest for one moment that sometimes the claims for increases may not be too great—possibly they are. After all, it is not very much that the ordinary public can do about it one way or the other. When an industrialist puts up the price of his commodity, he may be justified in making a small increase, but I am not sure that in a great many cases it is not a greater increase than the circumstances justify; and we poor consumers and public have to put up with it.
  I say that if we are to live together in harmony as a nation we have to take a reasonable view of our rights and responsibilities. The Government must do two things: first, they must hold the scales impartially between all sections of the community; and secondly, they must give a firm and wise lead. The noble Viscount who made those few perfunctory remarks at the beginning claimed that the Government in the past—and he went rather rapidly over about six years of Conservative rule—had always acted with great wisdom and justice and held the scales equally between different sections. Obviously, I cannot in a few moments in the closing part of my speech deal with the whole of his argument; it is a matter for discussion. I will only say this to him now. A large number of people do not take his view. It is not enough to be just; you have to be palp
  302
  ably just; you must convince the people of this country that you are just. I cannot here and now say whether the Conservatives have been just or not, but I am certain that large numbers of the people do not consider that they have been, and I am bound to say that I think they are able to make out a fair case against the Government in this matter.
  The Government, in the application of their dogma of "free for all," are out of focus, in my opinion, with the changed conditions of the second half of the 20th century. They have to convince the man in the street of the necessity' of putting public weal before private advantage; they have to demonstrate in their legislation, including the Budget, that they themselves put the same principle into practice and put the interests of the nation above the shibboleths of their own Party. They must abandon the fetish that dear money is the beginning and end of all wisdom, and shake themselves free from the orthodox and out-of-date financial tendencies. If they fail to do these things, it will mean that they have lost control of the financial situation and economic position of the country; and it will mean they have lost something else, too: they will have lost the support of the people, as a whole.
  4.4 p.m.
  LORD BROCKET: My Lords, I think we should be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for persuading the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, to make an opening speech. In these debates on the Finance Bill, which we have at far too late a date in the Summer Session, thus giving us little time to consider this Bill and the St. James's Theatre on the same day, we have always been used to an opening speech. I quite agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that that speech need not be a long one, but. I think it is helpful to Members of the House that anyone introducing a Bill should make fairly comprehensive remarks on it.
  We have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that this Budget must be considered as one of a series; and I entirely agree with that suggestion. We have heard, also, a justification of the reduction of surtax, or of allowances for surtax. On that I should like to say

  303
  that the young men of ability and intelligence—and perhaps also older men of ability and intelligence—about whom the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, was speaking particularly, perhaps, as Minister of Education, will find that the £2,000 a year which they may get in the future, including the increased rate of income tax which they have to pay now, apart from any surtax, compares in value with about £500 before the war, which is the yearly amount I pay my present cowman. I think that must be taken into account. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, about inflation, and I intend to come back to that a little later. But this £2,000 a year is really a fictitious amount, and it purchases the equivalent of what an income of £500 a year would have purchased before the last war.
  To come to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, I do not know what other noble Lords on this side of the House think, but I entirely agree with the noble Lord about dear money. I think the Government are entirely wrong about dear money, and I have said so on a number of occasions. If I may take the allusions of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, he talked about dear money being borrowed by local authorities, which means to say that they have to charge higher rents for their council houses; that rates go up, and that industry and individuals have to pay higher rates. That means, in turn, that the cost of living goes up, the cost of production goes up—in fact, everything goes up. If the nationalised industries have to borrow hundreds of millions of pounds (and we were told that the railways would have to borrow £1,200 million; your Lordships will remember that a gentleman who was an accountant in the railways made a statement that it ought to be £2,000 million, and not £1,200 million) at 6 per cent. or 7 per cent., is it not going to cost more than borrowing it in the days of Mr. Dalton at 2 or 3 per cent.?
  I believe that more financiers and bankers are beginning to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, that dear money is not a help towards curbing inflation. I think there is no doubt that the banker, who, after all, is a moneylender and trades in money, would like
  304
  to be able to lend money; and perhaps it may suit him to lend it at present at the higher rate of interest. On the other hand, money is becoming worth less and less, and the bankers' commodity is becoming worth less and less. One reason is that the rates of interest are so high, from the point of view of private industry. The way to compete with foreigners is to modernise one's factory by borrowing money; and the way to keep your costs down for export is to have your factory mechanised and modernised as much as possible. If the company have to borrow that money at 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. interest they may say that they are charged more. But that is not the point. One of these days, when inflation has taken place in this country to a greater extent than now, we shall not be able to compete with other countries in the export market. Their inflation, in certain instances, is not so great as ours. If industry has to borrow money at a high rate of interest, that puts up the cost of production, and in due course will reduce exports.
  To refer to certain specific points in the Budget, I happen to sit on the National Trust Historic Buildings Council, and also on the executive of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. I must say that I am very exercised by the large reduction from £60 million to £10 million in the Land Fund. The Land Fund was proposed and set in motion by Mr. Dalton some years ago; and Mr. Dalton has very sound views on the preservation of the countryside and of historic buildings. In this' last Budget, in Clause 41, the Land Fund is reduced by one fell swoop from £60 million to £10 million. I think that this is a mistaken step. I do not believe that the £10 million which is left in the Land Fund will be anything like enough to preserve the beauty and the historic buildings of the country in the next few years. I might add here that, at the very moment the Land Fund has been reduced, death duties are extracting enormous sums from the country, from industry, landowners, farmers and everyone else—in fact, the citizens of the country. Since the war, £2,000 million has been taken in death duties from the pockets of the private individuals of this country.
  Mr. Gladstone said—and he was a very wise Prime Minister, although not of my

  305
  Party—that money was best left in the pockets of the people to fructify. What have Governments done since the war except take £2,000 million of private individuals' money, and spend it in the ordinary way in which Governments spend money? If some of that £2,000 million could have been left in the pockets of the landowners of the country, the Government would not have had to provide £250,000 a year to help to repair houses of historic interest in the country. As a member of the Committee of the National Trust Historic Buildings Council, I am grateful that this £250,000 is made available. But that sum is coming from Government grants annually only because so much capital has been taken from the pockets of the people who used to own those houses.
  I think it is a short-sighted policy that this sum of £2,000 million should have been taken since the war, and that no Government. Conservative or Labour, have ever reduced death duties. From the political point of view, death duties are a levelling down. By the time everyone gets down to the lowest, I shall be very sorry for the country.
  I am sorry that no Conservative Government have reduced death duties and, unfortunately, certain members of the Labour Party regard death duties as a good thing. Therefore, we cannot really expect them to have reduced death duties. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said in his speech, "I hope this is not the last Budget to reduce taxation." I fully concur with him, and I should like to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he might have a look at the harm wrought by death duties, not only on agriculture but on private businesses and on the industry of the country, before he considers his next Budget.
  Having criticised the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government on those points, there is another point upon which I should like to congratulate them. I welcome Clause 8, which reduces purchase tax. Your Lordships will remember that in the autumn of 1955 Mr. Butler, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, put increased purchase tax on floor coverings, rugs, hardware, kitchen ware, toilet ware, domestic appliances, cutlery, spoons, forks, et
  306
  cetera. I thought at the time that that was one of the most foolish acts I had known by a Chancellor of the Exchequer of any Party. The immediate result was a round of wage rises. It is perfectly right that if the working man's wife has to pay more for household necessities, he must have more wages with which to buy those household necessities. If I may say so, the ancient and outworn Treasury view was that if you tax people more, they will spend less, and that that will better combat inflation. That view, in my opinion, is just as outworn as the view that high money rates combat inflation. I think they are both entirely wrong, and there is no doubt that, when extra purchase tax is imposed, it adds to the cost of living. That causes further wage rises, which means that the cost of production of articles in industry goes up and inflation goes on and on, because, the cost of production having gone up, the companies have to charge more for their articles, which means another wage rise immediately on top of the last one.
  I was pleased to hear the noble. Viscount, Lord Hailsham, take the side of those who wish to reduce taxation. The Government now are so much the senior partner in all industries. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, mentioned 30 per cent. as the amount which had been deducted out of the national income by way of taxes before the Conservative Party came into power, and that that sum has now been reduced to considerably under 30 per cent. May I wish our Government the very best of luck in reducing it still further, because there is no doubt that high taxation is one of the causes of inflation. The old Treasury view that the higher you tax people the less they have to spend and, therefore, the less they will spend, is, in my opinion, as dead as the dodo.
  Arising out of the last Budget, £400 million was kept by the Chancellor of the Exchequer below the line. Had he been a company chairman he would have said that he was putting £400 million to reserve, so as to invest in some further acquisitions or in some other industries. That is, in effect, what he was doing. But I should like to suggest that that is itself, to a certain extent, inflationary, because it means that £400 million more is taken out of the pockets of the people than would have been taken if he had

  307
  reduced purchase tax, pay-as-you-earn, income tax, or any other form of taxation, by that amount. In addition, this last year nearly £200 million was taken from the capital of the people in death duties, making a total of £600 million in excess of what should have been taken from the capital of the citizens of this country. I believe that had this £600 million been left in their pockets to be invested by private individuals, it would have been much better.
  If the nationalised industries wanted to raise money, they could raise it from private individuals, from the banks, or by Treasury Bonds in other ways, by borrowing it in the ordinary old-fashioned way, if, of course, they were not wedded to this policy of a high bank rate. Being wedded to that policy, it really means that the Government have to extract the money required from the pockets of the people, because they may not be able to get it in any other way. My own view is that the £400 million below the line is in itself inflationary, and I think that before another year this sort of question should be considered most seriously by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury. Arising out of that, I was pleased to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, say that
  "The key to the development in a free society in the modern world is investment."
  Of course it is. And in order to get that money for investment, one must leave as much as possible in the pockets of the people and not have a high bank rate.
  The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, told us of his experiences in Germany. Certainly Germany went through a very hard time after the First World War, and through another hard time after the Second World War, having been defeated. But Germany has twice more or less done away with its National Debt, either through inflation or otherwise. Germany is now beating us in industry and commerce because she is not saddled with the same amount of debt with which we are saddled. There is no doubt that the Germans are a very hardworking people. Without casting any aspersions on our nation—employers, employees and everyone else—the Germans are harder-working than we are; and if we do not get our costs down there is
  308
  no doubt that they will beat us and they are beating us at the present time.
  The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, said that there is no doubt—and I quote him:
  "that the body politic is infected with the germ of inflation."
  It certainly is. On all sides of the House we realise that. Therefore, although the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, suggested, in a letter to The Times a week or two ago, that a Commission should be set up, it may well be that before the Commission has time to report, inflation will have got out of hand. I think, therefore, that the debates in this House and in another place are most useful, because Members of both Houses can express their opinions to their fellow Members, instead of appearing before a Royal Commission, which takes two, three or more years to report. I feel that these debates are useful. We have only one opportunity a year to talk on finance. Moreover, we have no power to put into effect what we are talking about—we can only suggest. I think it is a pity that a larger number of Peers are not speaking on the Finance Bill, and that the debate on the St. James's Theatre could not have taken place at some other time. I know that the Session is so far gone that to-day is no doubt the only day that debate can take place; but, as I say, I think it is a pity that the two come together.
  To return to Lord Pethick-Lawrence's remark that "the body politic is infected with the germ of inflation," he instanced, as proof of that, recent or prospective increases in coal, gas, bus fares, steel, postal charges, rents, salaries and wages. And I might add that even Members of another place have had a little rise lately; and perhaps some of our expenses may come in useful in these inflationary times. The noble Lord also said that one will buy the same article but will pay more for it. There is no doubt that that is true. He also said that unless inflation is scotched, it easily grows into an "uncontrollable monster." That, too, is very definitely true.
  My Lords, I feel that inflation is a non-Party or an all-Party subject. It concerns everyone living in this country, and I have said on other occasions that I do not think members of the Trades Union Congress will, to use the vulgar term,

  309
  "take it" from a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer. They are always suspicious that a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer may be telling them that they must not ask for increased wages for some other reason than the one he is giving. I feel that wages at present, are not likely to be controlled by any remarks from a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer or even a Conservative Prime Minister, yet it is absolutely necessary, if wages are to go up, that wages and production should go up hand in hand. From the point of view of combating inflation, it would be much better if wages stayed where they were and the rate of production went up; but that is not to be expected from human beings. If they produce more they deserve to be paid more; but, as I say, I think the two should go up hand in hand as far as possible.
  I appeal to the members of the Party on the other side of the House to realise that this is really a matter beyond Party politics, and that this country is going to get into a very serious position unless wages are in some way linked to production. I do not consider that inflation in this country is anything approaching the sort of inflation that we saw in Germany and in some other countries after the First World War, but it is a very serious matter. It is also an interesting fact that it has been going on ever since William the Conqueror. I was looking the other day at a book which showed that members of my family had the fishing rights on three rivers in Northern Ireland before they were turned out by the Scots at the time of the Plantation of Ulster. They sold their salmon from those three rivers at one penny per pound. I believe now that if you can get it for 8s. 6d. per pound you are lucky. Inflation has been going on for centuries, but is it up to us to try to prevent it from gathering too great a momentum.
  To come back to this question of taxation, income tax, pay-as-you-earn, profits tax, tobacco duty, spirits tax, tea duty, sugar dury—-ithey are all inflationary. The other day I was told that if you buy a glass of whisky the duty, if calculated as purchase tax, would come to 350 per cent. Not being a whisky drinker myself, it does not affect me, but 350 per cent. purchase tax on a glass of whisky is very high. I would not say that whisky is a necessity, but certain people may regard
  310
  it as such. It shows how much the Government, or the Treasury, take out of everything. I feel that it is absolutely essential that the whole question of really drastic economy should be gone into by the Treasury. They have quite a long time before the next Budget, but unless the Government economise, and unless the nationalised industries also exercise some measure of economy, there is no doubt that we shall get into a very serious state. I should like to end my few remarks by saying that I hope this question of inflation can be looked at in an all-Party way and that it will not arouse passions on one side or the other. Perhaps an agreed appeal might be made to all sides of industry from the leaders of all Parties to do their best to prevent this inflationary spiral from going up and up.
  4.25 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Brocket, who has just resumed his seat has brought an atmosphere into the debate which is wholly for the good. We on this side are obliged to him for the manner in which he has approached the problem we are discussing to-day. I am more than grateful to my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence for the way in which he has dealt with this problem of inflation. I do not think that I would accept anyone in the whole of this country as a much greater authority than Lord Pethick-Lawrence on such a question as this, from our proved experience of his work on the problem itself, and of the fulfilment, in no uncertain manner, of his prophecies as to what would happen in given periods through which we have passed. He has again this afternoon given us the benefit of his advice, by which I hope we shall all benefit.
  The noble Lord, Lord Brocket, was kind enough to say at the end of his speech that he hoped that this question would, in the future, as far as possible be looked at as a non-Party question. There is no question at all that the general inflation of a catastrophic type that we might reach if we did not take steps to arrest it would be injurious to all sections of the community. It ought to be looked upon as a great national issue and dealt with as such. On the other hand, we have been passing through exceedingly troublesome financial waters for the whole of the period since 1945 up

  311
  till now. As I have said in your Lordships' House before. we are sometimes apt to overlook what we have actually expended from our national wealth and resources in doing our duty in the world on two great occasions, thereafter being left to struggle to recover our position against competitors in the world who were not nearly so badly placed as we were.
  Look at the general trend in prices, costs and investment in the years since 1945, and consider the position from which this country started. We were then literally in bankruptcy. We had reached the end of the war and had been living for a considerable period largely upon Lease-Lend aid, which was then suddenly cut off. Look at the struggle of all classes in the community in this country and what they have achieved in increased production, comparing volume with volume, ton with ton, against the pre-war figures. It is the sort of thing which has not been achieved in similar circumstances by any other country in the world. It is perfectly true that the German people, as remarked by the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, a very hard-working people. have had two periods of recovery also since the First and the Second war. But it is also true that they rid themselves of a large part of their burden by getting rid of their national debt by inflation of their currency; in other words by quite dishonest finance.
  That is the one thing that I would fasten on in the speech of the noble Viscount this afternoon. At the beginning he made a condemnation of dishonest finance. That is almost the only point I agreed with in what he said. It is to the great credit of this country that, with all that we have been struggling to do, we are doing our best to pay our debts. The general reputation of the country in the future must be maintained if we are to hold our own in production, export and the fiscal exchange values, upon which we so much depend. The fact is, however, that in a debate like this you cannot—if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Brocket—wholly excuse Governments for the policies which they adopt. The debate opened this afternoon with an attack upon my Party. That was commented upon, I think quite sufficiently and quietly, by my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and I do
  312
  not need to add anything to what he said. But it raises the Party issue very strongly indeed.
  In the period from 1945 to 1951 we had tremendous pressure upon us to restrict consumption of goods and to boost exports, to try to re-establish our position overseas which, in the commercial sense, had almost entirely been lost during the course of the war. The extent to which prices rose then was also very much affected by the fact that general world prices moved against us and the whole of our imports were costing us very much more pro rata than they have been costing the country during the last three or four years. The disappointing thing about the present situation is that we have to try to deal with this situation now, after we have had the benefit of a long period of cheaper imports compared with the prices we had to contend with between 1945 and 1951.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, at the opening of his remarks this afternoon, claimed great credit for the present Government because they had in their successive Budgets considerably reduced direct taxation. It is not the only series of Budgets which have included a reduction of direct taxation, especially when one considers the form of reliefs given from 1945 to 1951. I would agree that, having regard to the actual reduction of standard rates, and that kind of thing, there has been a steep advance in the relief of taxation for those who are best off in the country from the point of view of annual incomes. But the whole tendency of the Government's Budgets, with the exception of their impositions of such things as purchase tax in the famous pots and pans "Budget of Mr. Butler, in 1955, has been inflationary rather than deflationary. If you examine the way in which taxation has been relieved, you find it has meant increasing the incomes of people who are already in possession of good incomes. Whilst no doubt it has led in a good many cases to the increase of investment in industry, which we all welcome, nevertheless it has increased the standard of life that those people enjoy in the spending of their money. And the reliefs still go on. They are equally inflationary.
  You cannot really hold these facts away from the actual course of political events. Remembering the last few words

  313
  from my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence this afternoon as to what may be the effect upon the people, you cannot keep your mind away from the bases of the appeals by the Party opposite in the last two Elections. One would have thought then that the main purpose of their coming into office, on a basis of "Freedom for all" and a "Free-for-all" in all these matters, was to reduce costs, to reduce prices, to reduce taxation and, indeed, in the very apt phrase that they used in their posters with regard to inflation, to "Mend that hole in your purse!" And yet, ever since that appeal, for which they got the vote in the country, instead of "the hole in the purse" being mended, prices have been going up and up; and with every successive increase in the cost of living, as the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, showed so clearly in his speech to-day, you add to the demand for more wages—and rightly so—to meet the cost. Therefore, you add to your productive costs and handicap yourself in meeting your general commitments in the export trade which is essential to buy all the things which you really need. I am bound to say that the general attitude of the Government in this matter deserves the words which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, used when he spoke of his reading of the debate in another place a few days ago—that there was "an atmosphere of complacency about it."
  There has been a general tendency in the Press at large and amongst a certain section of the economic critics to blame the mass of the workers in the country for the present situation. I must say that that is most unfair. The workers in this country may not be perfect—I am sure they are not; and I am sure they have their faults; have not we all?—but they, too, have done a magnificent job since 1945 in increasing the volume of production. They have reached heights of production per unit of labour employed never reached before in this country. I would challenge anybody on the figures, even after making allowance for the increased productive power provided by new types of machinery—it is only fair to take that into account. When what is available to the British workers in power and horse-power is compared with what is available in the United States, it is all the more to be wondered at that our workers have done
  314
  as well as they have done. They have done a magnificent job, and for the real restraint shown during those difficult years from 1945 to 1951 we still owe them a debt of gratitude. They might have done so much more to put up the general costs and the general level of wages than they did in those years.
  What has happened since? They have been promised at two Elections reduced prices and reduced costs. The "wicked Socialists" were increasing their cost of living. Ever since then, instead of getting what they were promised, they are getting just the opposite. They have had a very good time from the point of view of employment—that must be conceded—but they have had to face a steady rise in prices and less sympathetic treatment by many of the concerns involved in disputes than could be desired at the first step. They need better conditions of negotiation with the leaders of industry when these matters first come up without the subject being brushed to one side or an offer being made which is almost a joke compared with the real needs of the situation. Then, after long and protracted negotiations, sometimes with a long stoppage, they find that their substantial increases have to be met by increases in the price of the goods they have to buy. Very much better conditions are necessary, and I believe that they could be achieved if real thought, attention and co-operation were given to that matter. From my point of view, I should like to see all the co-operation possible in that direction.
  When we come to deal with the situation upon which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, saw fit to lecture the Labour Party as if he were some professorial, superior person to those who compose the ranks of my Party, who in his view do not seem to know anything about any, thing—I would ask him to believe that those of us who have grown up in the working class, who come direct from the working class and who are most proud of it, know something more about the history of the fight to get university education for youngsters than the noble Viscount seemed to understand when he was making his attack upon us. The form in which he put it was an insult to those who have laboured and slaved and sacrificed for the cause of education in this country nothing like the kind of sacrifices which, no doubt, are made now by parents of the middle and upper classes

  315
  because of the high rate of taxation; the sacrifices that these other people have made are not to be compared with the sort of sacrifices that you are talking about now.
  What has been Labour's own policy as a consequence? Labour's own policy has been all the time to argue for, and finally to achieve, step by step, first, free secondary education, and secondly, literally free admission to university training for all those who reach the necessary standard, irrespective of family, class, position or status. That is the case for Labour's attitude to education. and I hope that the noble Viscount who saw fit to make this attack to-day will not be anywhere behind the ideals and the purposes of the Labour Party in this matter in the course of administering his duties as the head of that great Department.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not want to interrupt the noble Viscount in the course of his oratory, but I must point out that both free secondary education and free university training were instituted by the Act of 1944, which is generally known as Mr. Butler's Act.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I never heard such a claim in my life—I really never did! Here was an Act of 1944, passed by a Coalition Government, and under the inspiration of inquiries carried out before Mr. Butler drafted his Bill, by members of all Parties in the Government, and inspired to a great extent by a man for whom I have great Parliamentary respect, James Chuter Ede.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The only objection I was making to the noble Viscount was arrogating to himself the phrase which I put down in words—namely, "Labour's own policy". I felt compelled to say that the noble Viscount had no right whatever to say that.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The noble Viscount is just quibbling now. I have known all my life, in the study of industrial history. that Conservative Governments have had a great deal to do with social legislation, but always at the last moment, on the basis of "Give them what they like, not too much at a time and give it to them warm". It has come about only
  316
  by agitation and by co-operation and organisation within the working classes themselves. That is the actual fact, and anybody who studies industrial history knows that to be so. That is the position.
  If you are really going to deal with inflation, you have got to do far more than just increase the bank rate. I hold the view so wonderfully expressed in detail by my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence this afternoon. In other cases, there is only one remedy—the Prime Minister uttered it on Saturday last: more production. I believe that in relation to the given capital and labour available, that is true. But is it true having regard to the Government's management of the economy of the country? Is this something new? Not likely! In 1920 and 1921, posters were put up all round our country signed by the leaders of all Parties. I remember Mr. J. R. Clynes, with others, signing a placard to this effect: "More production the remedy in our present position." So more was produced. Then came the policy of the high bank rate, the "Geddes Axe" and everything else; this constant struggle, not purely because of inflation at the start, but because of the method adopted to deal with it—cutting off production, with millions of unemployed year after year.
  I should say that it would not be going beyond present possibilities to prophesy that, unless some other cure is found, we shall be turning, through a Conservative Government, to the setting up of another "May Committee" or something of that kind. I must say that that is something for which I, at any rate, and I hope my Party, will never stand, because there are other ways. You cannot cure inflation amongst the people by having a "free for all". The problem is too big; the debt is too large; the constant fight in the world to keep our position is too straining for us. You must have controls which are really effective in dealing with goods and commerce, and which are fair to the various classes of the community who have to live in this generation and prepare their own children for the next. Unless you do that, you can depend upon it that, as a nation and as an Empire, we shall come to the same sort of disaster as all the other great empires have come before, because they have not seen the danger in time and have not brought social improvements with justice to all the people, instead of to only sections of the people.
  4.47 p.m.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, when the Finance Bill comes up annually to your Lordships' House it is usual that there shall be knowledgeable analysis by those reinforced with high administrative experience. For the rest of us, it is a convenient opportunity once a year to raise matters on which we feel very strongly, and which we hope may be an incentive to consideration before a subsequent Budget. For myself, I feel that the noble Viscount who introduced the Bill, in the short way he did, gave us a lucid and effective explanation on the underlying principles of Government thinking in producing their Bill. Naturally, for the rest of us, it is also a temptation to jump into some of the arguments. We pay a tribute to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition who made an eloquent and effective debating speech in criticism of the Bill. Before that, the criticism of the Minister—that, in introducing the Bill, he was not more lengthy—fortunately did not cause any embarrassment to Lord Pethick-Lawrence, who gave us an ample and informative analysis. But he presented himself in the guise of a vigorous crepehanger, suggesting that inflation might gallop in this country, using the instance of Germany as a precedent.
  My intervention will confine itself to four points. The first one inescapably is related to the effects of inflation, which has been so prominent a subject of discussion. Naturally there is contention as to the manner in which inflation should be contained. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence made some quotations. I will follow his example. I will refer to the White Paper on Employment Policy (Cmd. 6527). The foreword to that document tells us that reasonable stability in the cost of living is desirable and is compatible with that
  "high and stable level of employment"
  which both Parties have agreed to accept
  "as one of their primary aims and responsibilities."
  It says further:
  "If we are to operate with success a policy for maintaining a high and stable level of employment"
  there will have to be moderation in wage demands.
  I pass now to my first point—the initial allowances. I am among the
  318
  many who regret that Her Majesty's Government were unable to see their way to restore to the full the initial allowances. As the noble and learned Viscount told us in his opening remarks, a considerable sum was set aside out of surplus, as a contribution towards that increase. There are a great number of firms in industry who naturally have to make their plans far ahead. Hope was held out that these allowances might be restored in the near future. That their restoration is delayed prevents plans being made. I regret that more particularly because so much of our plant in this country needs renewal. It is well known that the order books of many of the engineering sections which provide industrial equipment are very long, and the delay occasioned by having to wait for another Budget and then perhaps a further two years for the fulfilment of a contract is too long. The possibility of price increases provide another reason why delay should not occur. We recognise that there is a delicate balance of reasoning as to whether it is dangerous to impose that extra demand on the economy or whether that can safely be done—and I emphasise this point—to effect a great saving in costs, also of bodies employed in industry.
  I pass now to my second point—the depreciation allowances. Here, again, concessions would, of course, involve a cost to the Revenue; but the basis on which depreciation is currently permissible in a large sector of industry is inadequate. Your Lordships will be aware that the manner in which depreciation allowances are calculated varies in different countries; whether they are calculated on initial cost or on wasting value, there are different combinations in which the allowance is applied. Here values on which machinery has to be replaced are out of relationship with the basis on which they are carried on the books. That results in too-low costings and, in effect, a proportion of our exports are being given away, owing to the fact that because proper depreciation costs are not included in the price we are, in fact, exporting capital. In parenthesis, I would say that the Export Credits procedure to countries where interest rates are very high, in effect, on long dated contracts, is financing the buyers.

  319
  The third point I wish to make has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Brocket, who is to be congratulated on the effective contribution which he made. He referred to the incidence of heavy death duties or inheritance tax. My appeal now is that there should be consideration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the question of bequests for educational and charitable purposes attracting relief for probate on inheritance tax. This matter has often been discussed. There is no originality in the three points that I have just made. but I most strongly emphasise the disadvantage which this country suffers by comparison with, for instance, North America and other countries where great educational institutions are progressively built up in the service they give to the community as a result of the generosity of probate relief where bequests are made for such purposes.
  The fourth point to which I wish to refer is one on which I genuinely seek information, and I hope it may be possible for the noble and learned Viscount in his closing remarks to make some elucidation. Reference has already been made to it by the noble Lord. Lord Pethick-Lawrence. I refer to the financing of the nationalised industries. In his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the changed policy that is being pursued in obliging local authorities to go direct to the market and not to the Treasury. I believe it was suggested that this would effect a saving of £100 million in below-the-line expenditure and that, in enforcing this decision, an essential brake was being applied to local authority expenditure, having regard to existing inflationary conditions.
  Mr. Macmillan, in his previous Budget, introduced a new principle, namely, that for the first time on any substantial scale a large sum out of the Budget surplus should be utilised in below-the-line expenditure in respect of loans by the Treasury to nationalised industries. I understand that up to March last the actual loans to nationalised industries out of the above-the-line Budget surplus amounted to some £280 million. Now it is difficult to see on what grounds it can be claimed that it is right to force the local authorities to go to the market and not to the Treasury for their loans, and then, on other grounds, proclaim
  320
  that it is reasonable to take anything up to £300 million out of Budget surplus and set it aside for loans to the nationalised industries. If this is true, many people think it would be better to reduce taxation, and that the Government should, as in the case of the local authorities, oblige the nationalised industries to go to the market, if necessary supported by Treasury guarantee. Surely this procedure would make the nationalised industries more directly accountable to the public they serve for their financial operations.
  I believe that an Act of Parliament exists under which nationalised industries, which are large public monopolies, should operate them so that no loss is sustained, taking one year's results with another. In raising this point, I would suggest that the Treasury give some thought to the possibility of linking relief from direct taxation in the form of a savings incentive to those citizens who are prepared to save from their incomes in order to invest in these great and essential nationalised industries. I am rather biased, in that the Central Electricity Board, of which I think I am the only original member in this House to be among those displaced on nationalisation, always raised its requirements in the open market on its performance and without invoking Government guarantee.
  The noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition also referred to inflation. The nationalised industries seem to have got into a way of mostly making losses. Surely it is those losses which are the cause of the rise in costs of coal and freights and other things which the noble Viscount referred to. It is suggested that inflation cannot be stopped. Well, if this or any Government really want to stop it, all know full well that if there is a real determination on the part of all Parties to stop inflation it could be done by wielding again the "Geddes Axe." That would quickly halt inflation. But I am not recommending it. There seems a certain amount of hypocrisy about this matter. Everybody is saying: "Why is inflation not stopped?" And everybody knows that it could be stopped forthwith provided there was the requisite courage and determination to "face the music." We faced it in the 'twenties and what was done then could be done again. But, as I say, I am not recommending the

  321
  "Axe" and it would not conform to Government commitment to high employment. But do let us cease from hypocrisy and pretence, and recognise that under existing conditions there is going to be creeping inflation and that the unfortunate rentier and pensioner is going to be progressively trimmed. My Lords, it is unlikely that the Motion will go to a Division, but I record my support for the Bill.
  5.5 p.m.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, it is impossible to enter into an intelligent discussion of the Budget, or of the Finance Bill which gives legislative effect to those provisions which require legislation, except in the context of the economic situation in which we are. I am therefore not going to apologise for pursuing a little further the theme of inflation. It is only a few days ago, after all, that the Prime Minister, in the course of a speech, said:
  "Can we control inflation? This is the problem of our time"
  In that undoubtedly he is right. Inflation is destroying all rational management of economic affairs; it is creating the grossest inequalities as between one citizen and another. The noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading of this Bill delivered an impassioned defence of a very slight relief which is contained in it in favour of the surtax payer. I do not know why he was so modest about it. The limit at which surtax begins to operate—subject to that concession which does not amount to a great deal—is still £2,000 a year, just as it was before the war. The purchasing power of the pound is now 7s. as against 20s. If anyone had proposed before the war that surtax should begin to operate upon a level of income of £600 or £700 a year I think there would have been a terrific outcry. But it is now taken for granted, because people are unable to translate into concrete facts the results of the change in the purchasing power of money.
  The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, has referred to allowances for depreciation with regard to business capital, plant and machinery. Why are the allowances insufficient? They are insufficient because they are based upon the original cost of the equipment, and by the time the manufacturer's plant has worn out, he has to replace it at a very much higher level
  322
  of cost, and the provision which, theoretically, is sufficient, in practice is absolutely insufficient. The result is that every intelligently-run business has to try to save additional amounts, beyond the depreciation allowance, out of the profits of the business. If it does not do that, it will simply come to an end, because it will be unable to replace its capital. In order to do that, it has to save money out of taxed profits. These are some illustrations of the effect of the constant depreciation in the purchasing power of our currency. But there are a great many others.
  Those who invest in Government securities, in debentures, in preference shares of companies, which were always regarded as the safest investments, are suffering a steady depreciation in the value of what they invest, with the result that other people are benefiting. If a debenture holder or a preference shareholder loses, the holder of ordinary shares benefits, quite unjustly and quite arbitrarily. As a result of the policy of allowing inflation to continue and to continue indefinitely, a process of confiscation from one section of the community for the benefit of other sections of the community is carried out, surreptitiously, without plan, without logic and without justice.
  What is it that the Government propose in order to solve this problem. The Prime Minister, in the speech to which I have referred, said this:
  "In the long run there is only one answer to the '64,000 dollar question '—to increase production."
  And the Chancellor of the Exchequer also, speaking only a few days ago, said that
  "The best answer to the reduction of inflation was that we should all produce more."
  With all respect to these two gentleman, for whom in their private capacity I have the highest regard, I say that these statements are just nonsense. Inflation can continue even though production increases: the two things are only in a very indirect fashion related to one another. Inflation can exist whether production is falling or rising—it makes not the slightest difference. Inflation is the result, and the inevitable result, of expanding the circulation of money and credit.
  This is no new thing. It has been seen throughout the history of economic

  323
  affairs. When the Tudors debased the currency, when, during the French Revolution, assignats were issued ad lib from the printing press; when the United States printed "greenbacks"; when the Germans printed marks—all these had the same and inevitable result of depreciating the currency, leading to a constant increase of prices. Unless the Government are prepared to deal with that fundamental factor, it is ridiculous to talk about increasing production, restraint in application for increases of wages, restraint in dividend policy or anything else. The Government are possessed of ample weapons with which to deal with this matter. They are able to control the note issue. No increase in it can be made without the consent of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury. They are able to control the issue of Treasury Bills and other short-dated securities which form the basis for increased circulation of credit. They are able, through the Bank of England, which is now a national institution, to control the policy of the banks and to determine the amount of credit the banks may put into circulation. The means of dealing with the matter are in the hands of the Government, and in their hands alone; and it is quite misleading and quite false to try to shift the responsibility on to the general public and say that trade unionists or business men, or any other class, have the power to deal with this situation.
  5.15 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Silkin rises to sum up the arguments against this Bill, may I be allowed to add my protest to that of the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, in regard to the clause in the Bill which reduces the National Land Fund to £10 million. I appreciate that at this stage there is no chance of getting the Government to alter this decision, but I think that it should be known that this matter has caused more dismay to all of us who have been engaged for many years in what is called the amenities movement than anything that has happened for a long time. This money was definitely allocated by Dr. Dalton, at the time when the Labour Government had accepted the policy of national parks, and it was put on one side, so to speak, in order to see that there might be effective financial
  324
  backing for a system of national parks. These parks were, in fact, set up, but unfortunately their administration, so far as finance has been concerned, has from the beginning been in the hands of a Conservative Government, who have steadfastly refused to use this money.
  It is all very well for the Government to tell us that since the £60 million has not been used, there is no harm in reducing the Fund to £10 million. But if that money had been effectively used, the whole of the national parks set-up would have been very much more effective than it is to-day. It has been hamstrung. It is a pity that the noble Lord who is Chairman of the National Parks Commission is not here at the moment, because I am sure he would confirm this. The set-up has been hamstrung by the refusal of the Government to give it effective financial backing. And this reduction of the Land Fund to £10 million is part of that policy. It shows how bankrupt the Conservative Government are in respect of this great plan. I am very glad to add my protest to that of the noble Lord, Lord Brocket.
  5.18 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, although theoretically we are discussing the Finance Bill this afternoon, in actual practice, as we always do at this time of the year, we are discussing the financial position of the country. At this moment what is in our minds most of all is, naturally, the question of inflation. It is not at all surprising that most of the debate has been on that subject and that little has been said on the details of the Finance Bill. My noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, in opening the discussion (I do not count "the curtain raiser" of the noble and learned Viscount) in his very fine speech, criticised the Government for complacency. I feel that he was fully justified in that criticism.
  Your Lordships will recall one phrase which the Prime Minister used recently in a speech—that is, "You never had it so good." Whatever else he may have said, that sentence might well be taken out of its context, and it would give the impression that things are perfectly satisfactory, that we are all having a very good time, and that there is really nothing to worry about. Let me take that sentence and analyse it, to see what the

  325
  Prime Minister really meant. "You never had it so good." To whom, was the Prime Minister saying that? Was he saying it to the whole population or to a certain section? I think it is true that there is a section of the people of this country today who "never had it so good." There are people who are making large capital gains out of "take-over" bids or in other ways—people who buy theatres for conversion into offices, or who in other ways are making, or hoping to make, large capital gains, and are spending freely out of those capital gains. There are people living on expense accounts; people who are able to pay £1,000 or £1,500 a year rent for a flat in the centre of London, and are willing, in addition, to pay a premium, and who, presumably, charge up a portion of their rent as expenses.
  One of the problems of life, so far as I am concerned, is to ascertain exactly who are the people who are able to nay these large sums of money as rent for flats in the West End of London, and how they manage to do it. Any noble Lord who is seeking a flat with any comfort at all at the present time will find that he has to pay something like that sort of rent. There may be some noble Lords who can give an answer, but I have never been able to discover how it is done on the income which is supposed to be left after full and proper taxation has been paid. There are people who lunch daily at the Savoy or the Dorchester: if noble Lords go there they will find that these places are filled with people who not only lunch there themselves but entertain other people at the expense of the Government. There are the high-class stores, where large sums of money are being spent by women who, apparently, have no financial worries at all, and who are able to buy the most luxurious articles, presumably out of what is left to them after the payment of tax and surtax. Therefore, there must be a large amount of money that is spent not out of what is left after normal taxation but coming from some other source. If the noble and learned Viscount who is going to reply could get at the secret of where these people are able to find the money to spend so freely, I think he would have gone some way towards dealing with the question of inflation. I know a man in my locality who bought a
  326
  house and is spending £50,000 on adapting it. He is certainly not doing it out of income. How does he do it? I should be delighted if the noble Viscount could put his finger on that kind of case, and see if he cannot prevent that kind of inflation. Those are the people who have "never had it so good".
  But there is another section of the population who would not accept that statement people in quite a different category, who are looking forward with dread to a year next October when rent increases take place; people who are living on fixed incomes, just able to nay their rent to-day, and dreading what is going to happen when their rents are increased people who are just able to pay their day-to-day expenses, and to whom every additional shilling in Increased costs means deprivation of some necessity of life.
  Then there are the wage-earners. We hear a lot about the "wickedness" of men going on strike. I wonder whether noble Lords ever consider how all this arises, and what really happens? Almost every week the housewife finds it more and more difficult to manage on the amount of money her husband is able to give her, and it is the pressure of the housewife which forces the husband to make demands for higher wages. The noble and learned Viscount spoke of some £800 million which was left in the pockets of the workers as the net increase in wages. I wonder whether, when he replies—I am trying not to be unnecessarily controversial—he can tell us if this £800 million in any way represents an increase in the standard of living of the workers, or whether it is merely catching up with the increase in the cost of living. I feel that if we are to get to the heart of the problem we have to answer these questions honestly and sincerely. It is no good blaming the workers for demanding increases in wages, which merely reflect increases in the cost of living, as if they are doing something wicked and deliberately seeking to harm the country.
  It has been said that if only we could produce more that would help to solve our problems; and that greater production would justify higher wages. My noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch disagrees. I am inclined to think that there is a good deal of truth in it,

  327
  although I should not wish to be dogmatic about it. I am inclined to think that if we did produce more with the same amount of effort, it would result in a reduction in cost; and it would, at any rate, help us in our export trade. I think it must be advantageous to produce more goods with the same amount of effort and for the same wage. But is the policy of the Government to-day calculated to secure increased production? It is no good saying to the worker, "You work harder", or to the management, "You work harder". I suppose that everyone is capable of speeding up a little and increasing his effort, but the real way to increase production is by increased efficiency and by providing better equipment. That involves capital expenditure, and in most cases involves seeking to borrow money. The Government's policy of the credit squeeze prevents people from obtaining the money that is necessary in order to enable them to increase efficiency. There seems, therefore, a contradiction as between, on the one hand, asking for increased production and, on the other, the policy of the Government, which prevents it.
  I agree with those noble Lords who have said that this is a matter which requires objective consideration. The question of inflation is so serious that I think none of us, on either side of the House, should be tied by outworn dogmas on the matter. It is wrong, on the one hand, to blame the worker for the difficulties in which we find ourselves, or, on the other, to blame the capitalist or the employer. I feel that we need to look at these problems with fresh eyes and fresh remedies. After all, this inflation has been going on for some time. Some noble Lords have said that we have been suffering, from inflation since the days of the Norman Conquest. That is true, in a sense, but that is not the kind of inflation which is worrying us to-day. We are talking of something, quite specific—the rapid depreciation in the value of the pound which has taken place over the last few years.
  It is no part of my case this afternoon to put the blame on this Government, or any other Government. I believe that the Government's policy is mistaken, but honest and sincere; and I do not wish for a moment to say that they have deliberately adopted a policy which has
  328
  led to this result—of course not. But I do think it needs fresh thinking. The credit squeeze, the high rate of interest, and the other things which the Government are doing, such as setting up a Council of Inquiry, are things which have been done before. The policy adopted by the Government for the last two or three years has not had the desired result. Nor is cutting down Government expenditure necessarily the answer, if it simply means transferring expenditure from the Government to the local authorities or to private individuals. It is misleading to reduce taxation if, as a result, you are going to increase the rates: the public pays just the same. It is equally misleading to cut down social services and to put the burden of the cost upon the ordinary member of the public: he pays just the same. The total national expenditure is not necessarily reduced by cutting down social services or by transferring the cost from one public body to another.
  My plea, therefore, is that there should be some fresh thinking on this matter, and that we should have a new policy—something which we certainly have not got now, which certainly is not indicated in this Budget, and which there is no evidence the Government have in mind at the present time. Indeed, my criticism of the Government would be that of my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence: that they have shown themselves to be too complacent, and that they certainly give the impression to the general public that everything is perfectly all right: that there is no need to worry because they "never had it so good."
  5.33 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, to some extent I share the embarrassment of my noble friend Lord Brocket that, after this debate, the affairs of St. James's Theatre are about to engage your Lordships' attention. On the whole I would agree with him (although I suppose I should not) that the Finance Bill and a debate on economics deserves an afternoon and evening to itself. However, that was one of the factors in the situation which I had to take into account in introducing this Bill. I always regard myself, as long as I occupy this position, as simply the servant of the House, and I shall obviously take into account. or would desire to take into account, the

  329
  wishes not merely of those noble Lords who have expressed an opinion but also of those noble Lords who have an opinion but have not this afternoon expressed one. Certainly when the Finance Bill comes up again next year I shall take into account what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, about the procedure to be followed.
  But it is right that I should be honest with the House in this matter. At the moment, I am absolutely and entirely unrepentant: I am not wearing sackcloth and ashes. On the contrary, I think the debate which has taken place this afternoon entirely confirms my original judgment, which was fortified by that of one of the most experienced noble Lords who sit on the Benches opposite. It would, of course, be possible to introduce a Finance Bill into this House by describing the contents of the Bill—and, with his usual conservatism on matters not essentially Conservative, that was apparently the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. But my view of the matter was that I should be wasting the time of the House by such a course of action; and I still think so.
  I could not help remarking that, precisely as I had expected, this Bill, which contains sixty-seven pages, over forty clauses and nine Schedules has not been referred to once in detail by any of the noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. This has essentially been a debate about inflation. I myself think that is what the debate should have been about, and that is why I am wholly unrepentant that I did not take up half an hour or more of your Lordships' time to begin with discussing the details of the Bill.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Viscount seems to forget that if a Parliamentary measure of importance, containing very important legislation, is introduced properly by the Minister responsible, he outlines the policy of the Government represented by that Bill; and then the Opposition have something to reply to and criticise. That the noble Viscount has failed to do.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not take that view at all. I did, under pressure from the noble Viscount—and because I am always anxious to treat myself in
  330
  every way as the servant of the House—fasten on the two, as it seemed to me, important controversial parts of the Bill. I had to guide me, of course, only the kind of opposition with which it was treated in another place and out of doors. I fastened on the relief to surtax payers, which I defended, and I fastened on the balance between the £468 million surplus and the £100 million distributed by way of relief for taxation. I think I was right about that. It is true that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, in the admirable speech with which he succeeded me, hastily disclaimed the antics of his Party in the country and in another place. I do not blame him for being ashamed of them.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The noble Viscount is quite entitled to poke fun at me, but I do not think he is quite entitled to misrepresent me to the extent he has done.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think I was entirely accurate in my summary of the noble Lord's remarks. He was very anxious to disclaim the appropriateness of my remarks which were directed, I am bound to say, at those criticisms which, even after my experience of disunity in the Labour Party, I had anticipated would be put forward in your Lordships' House. His own views are, I have no doubt, far more responsible. Indeed, I congratulate the noble Lord in not having made the rather foolish points which were made by the leaders of the financial section of his Party in another place, and which have been made repeatedly by his Party machine in the country.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, is the noble Viscount coming shortly to discuss the Bill before the House?
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am going to answer the debate which has been put forward, a large part of which the noble Viscount has not heard. I propose with respect, and with the noble Viscount's permission, to answer the speeches of noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I was at the moment congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence on the speech to which we have had the pleasure of listening.
  As I said, this has been in the main a debate about inflation, and since I have been rebuked by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for lecturing

  331
  the Labour Party, it may be inappropriate for me to attempt anything like a long sermon on this subject. I do propose, however, to devote the great bulk of my remarks to it, and to fit, so far as I can, the remarks of noble Lords into the structure of this discussion. I myself would wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, when he said in his closing remarks that this is a subject that requires objective discussion. I do not myself believe that it is possible to divorce it from the sphere of Party controversy, much as I should desire to do so. There are sincere and deep divisions in British politics. If British politics do not continue to reflect sincere and deep divisions, they will cease to represent the opinion of the people; and because the main British Parties do, on the whole, represent the differences of opinion amongst the British people, they continue healthy and our Parliamentary democracy continues a healthy thing. I should not myself, therefore, expect to avoid Party controversy to some extent in a discussion. On the other hand, I welcome absolutely Lord Silkin's appeal for an objective discussion, because that will enable us to see the extent of our differences, and possibly even to see the way of solving the difficulties with which we are all faced, on whatever side of the House we sit.
  I think it may be true that neither Party in the State comes very well out of the discussions in recent years. I suppose it is correct, viewing the matter dispassionately—as none of us can that, by and large, Governments are timid to proclaim the truth and Oppositions are mischievous in actively fomenting fallacy. At Elections each Party has, I think, tended to darken counsel by pretending that the Government could play a greater, and it may be a different, part in combating the evils of what is called inflation from what is possible or even desirable. It may be that the people themselves are not entirely free from blame, because in the end I think the people of a country tend to get the kind of political argument from both sides of the House which they deserve. I think I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, who said that there is a good deal of conscious or unconscious hypocrisy in the discussion of this matter. I am sure that noble Lords this afternoon have done a great deal, by applying
  332
  their minds to the problems, to dissolve that hypocrisy. I would myself even suggest that the word "inflation" is, in some respects, responsible for the evil. We all use the word; we all agree that it is a naughty word, but in fact we use it to distinguish different and distinct, though sometimes associated. sets of economic facts, some good, some inevitable, some bad and some avoidable.
  Whatever Governments come and go, I cannot resist the inference that we are living in a high cost economy. And I do not ignore (nor do I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was quite right to brush aside the reference of two other noble Lords to the fact) that, historically, inflation has been continuous from very early times. The noble Lord, Lord Brocket, dated it from the Norman Conquest. I have heard people date it from the Egyptian civilisation, and prove their case. Lord Douglas of Barloch was slightly less historical and went back to the Tudors. But I myself do not think that that is at all an unwise comparison. Even in my own lifetime, which stretches for nearly half a century, I can remember the time when eggs were 10d. a dozen, the Daily Mail a halfpenny and agricultural wages less than £1 a week. Since then prices have risen, not quite steadily and not quite consistently, but I think inexorably.
  Whatever the evils of inflation may be, the state of the economy is that it is a high cost economy, and I am not by any means sure that this is necessarily a bad thing. I say that quite deliberately. Certainly our attempts to reduce prices between the wars, which had some measure of success, achieved results not universally popular, as the noble Viscount opposite reminded us. I cannot help noticing that, despite all the alleged evils of inflation, neither Party has, in fact, attempted to reproduce those results. I do not believe that anyone can become richer by making everybody poorer, even if it does enhance the value of money. That appears to be the underlying fallacy in the views of a good many people who ask that prices should come tumbling down. If this is complacency I am one of the complacent.
  I would reiterate and support the statement out of doors by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, that people have "never had it so good."

  333
  The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in a speech which was in parts more helpful than the part I am now referring to, and possibly less meretricious, drew an elaborate picture of people with vast capital gains living, in the Savoy on expense accounts as people who had "never had it so good" But I would tell the noble Lord, since he asked, where I look for my support for the Prime Minister in his statement. I do not look to elaborate Treasury accounts or purely fiscal considerations. I ask myself, first of all: has the health of this country even been so good? I am not talking about the spiritual condition of the country; nor, in a Finance Bill, would it be desirable that I should. I ask about material things; has the health ever been so good? Has infant mortality ever been so low; Has consumption of milk and butter and meat ever been so high? We know these things have reached an all-time "high." A man has only one belly to feed. It is not the man living in the Savoy on an expense account who affects the vital statistics of the nation.
  The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, said that there was a good deal of conscious or unconscious hypocrisy in discussing inflation. I seriously ask Lord Silkin if, on reflection, he really thinks it was a fair discussion of the Prime Minister's observation, be it right or wrong, to introduce the story of the capital gains and expense accounts in the Savoy. The truth is that people have never "had it so good." There never has been a time when children have enjoyed such good education, such good health services; when there has been so much evidence of prosperity everywhere we go; where the clothes have been so solid or the diet so rich and varied. That is what we mean by saying that they have "never had it so good." And it is a fact; and we are not ashamed of it. If this is complacency, I am one of the most complacent men in the world. I am glad of it and proud of it. I go on to assert that 999 people out of 1,000 who have ever lived on this planet would have given their eyes to live in a situation such as that which we are enjoying now. Anybody who tries to pretend the contrary is indulging in self-deception or hypocrisy.
  I cannot complain of any part of this. A great deal is now said about the desir
  334
  ability of restoring the value of money or bringing down prices. The very people who make these remarks are the same who demand full employment, higher pensions, more roads, support prices for agriculture, a free Health Service, expanding education, and adequate investments in the railways and nuclear power. All this is very impressive; and how lustily everybody cheers, at least so long as they remain on the Back. Benches, when these improving sentiments are voiced! But does all this add up to a policy? Or is it simply another way of saying that in a democracy it is hard to persuade anyone, including politicians, that you cannot eat your cake and have it. At all events, whilst I should be the last to encourage run-away inflation, I have never, in office or out, given any encouragement to those who believe that prices can come tumbling down at the behest of a Government; or, if they could, that the Government ought to tumble them.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: No one on this side, to my knowledge has asked—certainly I have never asked—that prices should come down. I have asked that they should be stopped from going up, which is quite a different thing. I think the noble Viscount is entirely confusing two utterly separate things.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not think it is a different thing to say that you think prices ought to be stopped going up from saying you think they ought to come down: they are different degrees of the same process. I am wholly at one with the noble Lord, if may say so, and, as I was about to say, in thinking that the fact that we are living permanently, or semi-permanently, in a high cost economy only makes it the more imperative to stop prices going up if we can and to the extent we properly can.
  I was about to discuss the circumstances in which that could be done. At any rate, I would say this in parenthesis. The noble Lord quite rightly interrupted me at that point, but I should like to make the point I was immediately going to make at this stage. It is also worth saying that high prices are not in themselves necessarily inflationary. I would justify this by pointing out how very much worse it would have been if the recent price increases had not taken place.

  335
  Suppose we had not put up the Post Office charges and had allowed it to go on running at the deficit caused by spending more money on wages; suppose the nationalised industries had not put up the price of steel and coal and had run at a loss, spending money on wages and at the same time not getting it back in the form of increased prices, could anything be more inflationary than that? I do not accept the view that the price increase in itself—I am sure the noble Lord has deep knowledge of such things—is necessarily the evil we are attacking.
  I would say this: that of course there are serious consequences for Governments in such a state of affairs. In the first place, as the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, reminded us, people with fixed incomes suffer, people who invested in debentures suffer and pensioners suffer. This is so whether or not production keeps on rising in step with wages, dividends and salaries. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, that, to that extent, at any rate, an inflation can go on irrespective of an increase in production. But, because the word "inflation" in that context is used in a different sense from that in which it is sometimes used, I would disagree with him in the inferences he drew.
  Of course, this high-price economy means that the fixed income groups—and they are many—become vulnerable and the under-privileged classes for whom it is necessary to do something in order to counteract the evils of high costs. The difficulty is that, in the main, the remedial measures most popularly advocated add to the cost inflation already taking place. It follows from this that the remedial measures themselves ought to have built into them some self-financing provisions which increase in yield in step with higher production. That having been said, it is right for me to say that both Parties are thinking on these lines. It is obviously the aim of both Parties to devise a pensions scheme which contains some safeguard against this danger. I have no doubt that this was one of the objectives of the Labour Party scheme but I have no doubt myself that it fails and that the net result would be highly inflationary.
  The next thing—and, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch,
  336
  said, I say this with great confidence and I am supported in it by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—is to make quite sure of increased production. Obviously, an increase in wages—
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I do not say that increased production is not a highly desirable thing. I say that it is something which is separate from inflation. You can still have inflation with increased production.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have already told the noble Lord the extent to which I agree with that sentiment. I am now going to tell him, with equal respect, I hope, to his argument, the extent to which I disagree with it. Obviously, an increase in wages without an increase in production can only have a really serious effect on the value of money. It is precisely for that reason that I should prefer the view of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to that of the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, when he said, again in the hearing of the House, that the two questions were in fact quite separate. I do not agree that they are. Nor do I think there is the smallest possible value in the suggestion that the Government should, apparently, exercise the power they have to control the note issue. I wonder what would happen if we controlled the note issue just after there had been a rise in wages. It seems to me to be a suggestion which would lead to evils far worse than anything we have yet experienced and which would result in a far greater diminution in the value of money and in a far greater and much more serious undermining of confidence.
  I come here to something which again may be called complacent, but I am bound to tell your Lordships what I think about it. I am perfectly certain that we are, in fact, on the verge of a considerable boom in production—that is, unless, before it can take effect, we price ourselves out of the market under the slaphappy dictatorship of some of our more irresponsible people, not in Parliament. Certainly we have increased our productive capacity during the past eighteen months, I explained in an earlier debate how this was the explanation of the apparent and alleged stagnation of an industrial index last year. We were, in fact, switching our manpower and

  337
  materials from production for consumption to the production of production capacity. It is this fact which I believe to have been under-estimated in recent alarmist speeches and articles. I venture to say that it was precisely this fact which the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, under-estimated in his gloomy comparisons with Germany.
  The "64,000-dollar question" for a free society revolves round its investment programme. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, agreed with me that this was the heart of the matter. As I listened to the various speeches of noble Lords, I came to the conclusion that this, at least, was something about which most of us could find ourselves in agreement. The nature of the criticisms of Government policy showed how very near to the heart of the matter the investment programme is. Of course, a dictatorship manages its investment policy by restraining consumption forcibly and by exiling the advocates of reckless consumption to the Russian equivalent of the Battersea Power Station, and imposing the most rigorous controls both on production and on prices. But can such a system work here? Speaking for myself, if I had to choose between freedom and inflation, I should still instinctively choose freedom. But, of course, the choice is unreal. A galloping inflation, as the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has reminded us, undermines the foundations of democracy. It does so by demoralising the people in the literal and most dangerous sense of the word and by destroying the people's faith, not merely in their currency, which is bad enough, but in their system of government, which is calamitous. This was part of the history of the Weimar Republic. Here I differ from the noble Lord who drew this conclusion from his recollections of that Republic. I do not think we are in danger of an inflation on those grounds.
  Again. I draw attention to the differences of senses in which we use the word. With production and investment at existing levels, inflation can be, and is, hurtful and inconvenient, but it can, I should hope, never take charge to that extent in the absence of some international disaster beyond our own control. I would accept from the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, his own comment on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord
  338
  Pethick-Lawrence, which was to the effect that in the economy of Germany at that time there was an element which I think one can say at this distance of time could be described as an element of deliberate financial dishonesty, and which I hope we shall never have here under whatever Government is in power. So I do not think that that is a real danger here.
  The need for investment has, of course, been met with a large increase of investments. In the last five years we have, in fact, been moving strongly from a low-investment economy to a high-investment economy. In 1956 fixed investment totalled over £3,000 million, a real increase of 33⅓per cent. over the total for 1951. As the result of policies pursued by the Government, it has been possible in 1956 to increase investment so that it now amounts to 16 per cent. of the gross national product. It has levelled out at this figure. The trouble is that, whilst investment is absolutely necessary if a free society is to enjoy full employment and a rising standard of living, there is nothing more directly inflationary, in one sense of the word, than long-term investment. That, I think, is the answer to many of the criticisms which have been levelled at Government policy.
  Several noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and Lord Brocket—complained, for instance, of the dear money policy. The dear money policy has been the policy of the Government throughout its term of office, to control the economy as far as possible. I should be the last to pretend that, by itself, it can achieve the whole object of the exercise; but if one accepts that, in order to restrain inflation within reasonable levels, it is necessary to put some brake upon investment when we are moving into a high-investment economy, it is necessary, I think, to restrict the quantity of money. It is a consequence of the reduction in the supply of money that the price of money—in other words, the rate of interest—should rise. Whilst myself not wishing to claim too much for the effectiveness of our monetary policy, I think we can claim that there has been a marked improvement in the present economic situation when compared with the condition of excess moneys in 1955. There is now a relatively favourable balance of payments; the acute labour

  339
  shortage is at an end, and the rate of increase of prices has moderated; and that, I think, is the justification of the policy which we have been pursuing. Investment is, of course, directly inflationary, although it is also highly desirable, and some moderation upon the total quantity of investment is. I think, essential in the present situation.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If the noble Viscount thinks that the policy of dear money has been a success, I venture to think that he is one of the very few people to take that view.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not know whether that is the kind of comment which is intended to be helpful. At any rate, I am aware that I am dealing with it in a succinct manner and that I have not exhausted the subject. I am putting forward the Government's answer to the noble Lord's speech, which it is my duty to do. I should have devoted much more attention to this subject had it been the only subject which noble Lords had raised by way of discussion.
  It is in the same way that I find myself compelled to criticise my noble friend Lord Brocket, who adheres to Mr. Glad-stone's doctrine that the only thing you have to do in order to quell inflation is to allow money to fructify in the pockets in the people. I cannot take that view. Investment is not only desirable in the private sector. We need new roads—we are constantly being pressed in this House for new roads. That is investment, and the money must come out of public money. We cannot let that money fructify in the pockets of the people and so deprive ourselves of a modern system of transport. We need new nuclear power stations, which have to come out of public money to some extent, and we need new schools. We need dozens of things which have to be provided out of public money, and I am simply unable to follow the argument which suggests that Government expenditure is of its nature inflationary and that private expenditure is of its nature not inflationary. My own view is that any activity which increases the quantity of money as against the quantity of goods is, strictly speaking, inflationary. There is nothing more inflationary than investment, and very few things more desirable. It only goes to show the extent to which
  340
  such things are intractable. So far as I am concerned, I would say that the dear money policy is logical and that it affords an improvement. That does not deal with the whole situation—obviously not; otherwise we should not be discussing this matter to-day.
  Now, my Lords, in connection with investment the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, made two points in regard to which he asked for an explanation and of which he had given me short notice. Again, I hope he will not complain if I give him a somewhat short answer in what is, necessarily, a somewhat protracted speech. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, was interested in what he regarded as the contrast between Government policy on borrowings by local authorities and on the financing of nationalised industries. He referred, in particular, to the change introduced by my right honourable friend Mr. Butler in the autumn Budget of 1955. by which local authorities, who hitherto had been able to borrow from the Government through the Public Works Loan Board for all approved expenditure, were to be expected in future to raise their capital in the general market, so far as possible. He referred, secondly, to the change introduced by the present Prime Minister in the Budget of 1956 and embodied in Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1956, under which the nationalised industries, who had until then raised capital by issues of stock on the market under Government guarantee, were authorised to borrow instead from the Exchequer within the limit of £700 million and up to March 31, 1958.
  I think that the contrast is not an inconsistency, and that it is more apparent than real. The main ground of the first change relating to local authorities is that it was thought reasonable that local authorities should try, as far as possible, to match their requirements against loans forthcoming from private lenders rather than by drawing on the Government, which would have meant an increase in the floating debt. The result of this change of policy was very marked and, from that point of view, successful. Borrowing by local authorities from the Public Works Loan Board fell from £364 million in 1955–6 to £121 million in 1956–7.
  The second change of policy was of rather a different kind. The Government

  341
  guaranteed stocks which the nationalised industries had been issuing, and these stocks, unfortunately, had by no means been fully taken up by private lenders. The present Prime Minister explained that these stocks had to be supported by the Exchequer in so far as they were not purchased for private ownership, and in the month before the Budget of 1956 this support had been substantial and prolonged. The effect of the change was that the Government began to provide finance directly, where before it provided finance indirectly, for a considerable part of the same need.
  In the Finance Bill debate last summer, the present Prime Minister said that the only effect of the new policy was to make a technical change in the method of borrowing, and it cannot be maintained that the Government have taken on a wholly new commitment for the nationalised industries in exchange for a greatly reduced commitment to the local authorities. The reduced rate of Government borrowing by local authorities, is, in our view, a real gain from the Exchequer's point of view and the commitment in respect of the nationalised industries must be seen against the previous position in relation to the support for guaranteed stock issues.
  My Lords, the question has been raised by the noble Viscount Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, as to whether, within the somewhat modest limits of possibility in a free society, a system of price control, subsidies and physical controls can offer a significant contribution to solving our difficulties without destroying the very system of freedom which it is intended to defend. Of course, we shall all agree that price control and subsidy did very well during the war, and for some time after it. But there were three important factors present then which are not present now. In the first place, there was not merely a shortage but a cast-iron top limit to the quantity of goods available from import and manufacture. This rendered the black market somewhat simple to control. Secondly, rationing of commodities was an essential feature of the scheme; and as each person, by and large, had a right to delivery of his whole ration, "under the counter" buying became limited in scope. Thirdly—to this I attach the greatest importance—public opinion
  342
  was behind the policing of the scheme. I myself do not believe that public opinion would tolerate such large-scale policing to-day. The quality of goods available to-day is indefinite and above the level at which rationing would be either effective or desirable. In the result, it is my view that a system of price control, and physical control, would be deeply corrupting, inefficacious and unsupported by public opinion. Incidentally, it would have the effect of creating a black market and not of controlling prices.
  I do not myself accept the view that physical controls on building, would, on the whole, offer a statistically significant contribution to solving the problem of inflation. Like many others, I should have liked to see many more hospitals and schools erected since the war, but I do not take the view of some people, that office blocks are luxury buildings; on the contrary, I regard good office accommodation as part of the legitimate capital investment of industry and commerce. I believe that any New Yorker would tell doubters that it pays for itself many times over. If we have a heavy increase in the number of motor vehicles on the road we must have a number of new garages, although I notice that new garages are sometimes attacked as luxury buildings. Then, although we see frequent references to new cinemas, I know of hardly anyone building new cinemas except in the new towns, where new cinemas are, at any rate in my view, a social necessity.
  I turn now to the question of Government expenditure. Here I would share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that sometimes a too-savage attack is made upon Government expenditure. Of course, there is always an attack on Government expenditure whenever there is an alarm about inflation. I regard such attacks as reasonable, for Government expenditure is paid for by forcibly removing purchasing power from the people. I am not one of those who would object when it comes under scrutiny; but precisely because it comes under scrutiny at every such time I am not one of the optimists who believe that a great deal more can be got out of it. Frankly, I am not, for instance, prepared to risk national security by cutting defence expenditure any more drastically in the present international context; nor am I

  343
  prepared to see standards of education sacrificed just at the very moment when our campaign to make people realise the requirements of the situation is beginning to show signs of success. Pensions are likely to cost more rather than less. I am not prepared to see the public interest damaged simply because public expenditure is a sector of finance more directly under the control of Parliament than any other.
  Here I come to what I regard as the truth. I believe that it can be stated in a sentence or two. I believe that everybody knows it, although there is a lamentable disinclination to face its consequence. I believe it is true that the present inflation is, in fact, due to rises in wages and salaries in the last year unaccompanied by a corresponding rise in production. I am not prepared to take the view suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that there is any statistical evidence whatever to suggest that any rise in prices has been a direct cause of that pressure. The amount was, as I said in opening, £900 million over twelve months, without a corresponding increase in production, of which £800 million remained after taxation. It was not due to Government spending. It was not due to an increase in profits or dividends. The increase in dividends was of the order of 3 per cent. compared with (I believe) about 9 per cent. in wages—or about £25 million, as compared with £800 million after taxation. We shall not cure inflation by attacking profits or dividends nor by soaking the allegedly rich—that is, the 250,000 people who earn more than £2,000 a year, valued, as the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, reminded us, at about 7s. in the pound according to pre-war standards. They have already been soaked and it would make no significant contribution whatever to the problem to increase the punitive rates of taxation to which they are already subject.
  We can cure a disease only by facing the cause of it. The cause is not high prices, although prices are high. It is not high taxation, though taxes are high. It is not high Government expenditure, though Government expenditure is high. It is not profits or dividends. The cause lies in the figure which I have mentioned—£900 million, or £800 million, if one allows for taxation. This leads me to
  344
  say something on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. Personally, I should declare myself a friend of a philosophy of high wages, and I do not desire to adopt any other philosophy in this matter. I do so for three reasons: first, because an increase in production ought to reflect itself in a higher real wage. Such a higher real wage is not inflationary but is a just reward for labour. Secondly, production will be increased, rather than diminished, by rising labour costs, provided that the quantity of production keeps step. I have no doubt whatever that there is no greater spur to that modernisation of plant and production methods which we ought all to desire than rising labour costs. It is a discouragement, not an encouragement, to management to look to the attitudes and mentality of the nineteenth century to cure twentieth century problems.
  But the higher the wages are, the more necessary it becomes to examine the question whether the timing and rate of rise is or is not, on the whole, advantageous to the workers' standard of living. It is here that I come to some recent statements out of doors, by a trade union leader who has been widely reported. I am bound to say that he has not, so far, thought it expedient to bear the burden of Parliamentary responsibility. At times he seems to give the impression of seeking to dictate to Parliament without being prepared to listen to Parliamentary criticism or advice or to submit to Parliamentary discipline. I can only see in such a state of affairs very grave disadvantages. This leader tells us that the workers in his union are prepared to defend their standard of life. So they should be. But when it can be shown objectively that £800 million unrelated to productive increases is the cause of the threat to their standard of life it does not make much sense to talk of the absence of restraint.
  I am not going to suggest—and I do not suggest—that demands for higher wages are unreasonable. I was glad to notice that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, in his speech, which I have repeatedly praised from my own point of view, said, as I understood him, that it was wholly wrong to demand a total absence of restraint in respect of increased wages without any limit at all. But is he not aware that the trade union leader to whom I was referring has set down a

  345
  motion to the Trades Union Congress demanding that, in almost the wordsin which the noble Lord denounced it?
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to see that.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Viscount can see it printed in the Press. That leader said there should be no restraint without controls. On this I would make two comments. The first is that the offer means precisely nothing. It is said that Her Majesty's Government must first control profits, building and dividends by law. Then, it is said, "We shall graciously consider whether we shall be pleased, not to submit to controls, for that would never do, but to moderate our own demands in accordance, not with the public interest, nor even with the interest of our own members, but with what we graciously see fit to ask for under threat of industrial action." I do not believe that this is the language of democracy. We have to hammer out in Parliament the problem of inflation, and we in Parliament are not going to be dictated to from outside as to what our solution should be.
  I would only add that we on this side of the House have been accused of complacency. If that means that we are less sure than some noble Lords have seemed to be, in the course of this debate, that we are in for uncontrolled inflation, then it is true; for we do not believe that inflation on that scale is imminent, and it is right that we should say so. If it means that we underestimate the complexity or intractability of the problem, then I believe the charge to be wrong. We welcome, and shall welcome, criticisms from all parts of the House which have been levelled at us this afternoon. We shall consider them most carefully, and I believe that by debates of this kind, and by viewing the problem in an objective way—though not without an invigorating element of controversy—we shall, before long, turn our difficulties into a record of achievement.
  On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
  Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 15), Bill read 3a, and passed.

  THE ST. JAMES'S THEATRE
  6.20 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN rose to move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House, no action should be taken to demolish or otherwise prejudice the continued use of the St. James's Theatre as a theatre pending a decision on the matter by both Houses of Parliament. The noble Lord said: My Lords, at last I am able to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It was down for the 25th of this month, but on that occasion it was overshadowed by a United Nations debate. To-day we were threatened with its being overshadowed by a financial debate. I am very grateful that we are able to begin discussion of the Motion at a reasonable time. I do not want to repeat the case that I made on July 9. On that occasion, the House may remember, I put an Unstarred Question asking the Government for information as to the fate of the St. James's Theatre. In accordance with the rule of this House, I was able to make a few preliminary observations in putting that Question, but I had no right of reply. I do not desire to repeat at any length what I said then, but I did make four points in justification of the retention of the St. James's Theatre. I will just set them out very briefly.
  The first was its history and tradition. There is nothing I want to add to that except that I am informed that Rachel once performed there, and that Charlotte Brontë visited the theatre and saw some of its productions. It has a very great history and tradition. The second point I made was the architectural merit of the theatre. I described it as Georgian. The noble Lord, Lord Blackford who, I understand, is to speak in this debate to-day, challenged that and said that the theatre was built in the reign of William IV. Historically, he is right; architecturally, he is wrong. The theatre is one of the two Georgian theatres. It has architectural merit, and has been accepted as such because it is on a list which is made by a body of eminent architects presided over by Sir William Holford. It is true that it is not in the highest priority, and no one would claim—certainly I do not claim—that it is, the finest work of architecture in London. I did not put that forward as my main

  347
  argument, but the building has architectural merit.
  The third point I tried to make was that London could ill afford to lose one more theatre, and an important one. In recent years we have lost a considerable number of theatres, and we are threatened with the loss of even more. It is not from the point of view only of the British public that we want to retain as many theatres as possible (and we do want to retain this one) but equally from the point of view of the tourist who comes here and wants to visit the theatre. The St. James's Theatre is one of those to which tourists want to go because of its high tradition. It seems to me to be an extraordinarily foolish policy to allow a theatre which we badly need to be destroyed.
  The fourth point I made was that to destroy this theatre, and to allow offices to be built in its place, was contrary to the planning policy which we ourselves have laid down as being desirable. It is true that at the time when the planning permission was given the London County Council had provided for offices to be built on the site of the theatre, should the owners so desire; but that policy was soon found to be wrong, and to-day, if such an application were made, it would undoubtedly be refused. There is no doubt about that at all. No one would dream to-day of giving permission for the demolition of this theatre and the erection on the site of a block of offices. And that is not merely because we do not want any more offices in that part of London (although, as I had to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, on the last occasion, it is not that there would not be a demand for them) but also because of the consequent traffic dislocation which the construction of new offices would bring about, and the difficulties of housing additional workers. So we should not to-day have allowed this. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said on the last occasion that he was entirely sympathetic to what we wanted to do, and that the Government deplored the destruction of the theatre. Mr. Duncan Sandys said that it had "somehow slipped through the net"—which I take to mean that it was a mistake. I assume that he thought it was a mistaken decision to allow this theatre to go.
  Those, my Lords, are the facts, and the question is: are we too late to put right what most people—indeed, I would say almost everyone except the noble Lord, Lord Blackford—would agree was a mistake at the time and which would certainly be an even greater mistake to-day? Are we too late? I should like to deal with one or two of the arguments that have been put forward to justify persistence with this mistake. One is that you cannot compel a person to run a theatre at a loss, or even, I suppose, at a profit. If the proprietors of the theatre wanted to demolish it, they could do so. It is quite a mistake to suggest that this theatre has been run at a loss. I have in front of me the figures of the net profits which have been made in this theatre over the past seven years. They vary considerably, but if my arithmetic is right the average net profit over the past seven years was £27,000 a year. That is a not inconsiderable figure, and therefore no question of running the theatre at a loss arises. Of course, if the owners want to demolish and destroy their £27,000 a year they are possibly free to do so. But if they will not be allowed to put up anything else but a theatre in its place, I can see no wisdom in their wishing to destroy the existing theatre.
  May I say, in passing, that one of the things which disturbed me was the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, as to the action of the owners of the theatre. I gathered from him that they had definitely stated to Mr. Duncan Sandys that they had no intention of selling the theatre: they had no intention of using it for any other purpose but a theatre, and they definitely intended to run it as a theatre. It was probably relying on that assurance that Mr. Duncan Sandys, after the decision of the London County Council had been given in principle, took no further action. I have very little doubt, knowing Mr. Duncan Sandys as I do, and as any noble Lord who knows him will agree, that if he had for a moment believed that the theatre was in danger he would have taken action at that time. But he relied on the assurance of the owners that no such action was contemplated; and he allowed it to go.
  One of the difficulties, which possibly is inherent in a question of this kind, is that the public get to know about these decisions too late. We were all lulled into a sense of false security. I do not think that the public realised in 1954 that a decision in principle had been taken. As the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, elicited yesterday, it was made by the vice-chairman of the town planning committee of the London County Council, on his own responsibility. I make no criticism of that; that is the procedure which is now adopted. In the days when I was chairman of the town planning committee, such a decision would not have been given by one person alone on his own responsibility. If a matter of this kind had come up, even the chairman would have been wise—and I hope that I should have been sufficiently wise—to bring it before the committee and not take the whole responsibility upon himself. But I can well understand, with the large number of applications which come before the London County Council, and because, on the face of it, it seemed to comply with the development plan as it was at that time, how (to use the words of Mr. Duncan Sandys) this matter "slipped through." But the difficulty we were all in was that none of us knew about this decision in principle about this decision to permit the building of offices in place of the theatre, until a few days before the date of the debate on July 9. Now we learn that demolition is to begin next month.
  Since our previous debate, we have heard a number of derogatory statements about the theatre itself. Mr. St. John Ervine says that the theatre is in the wrong place. It has been in the wrong place for a very long time without much criticism; and, moreover, has been able to earn an average net profit of £27,000 a year. That indicates that there is not much wrong with the site of the theatre. In my view, and I hope in the view of a good many of your Lordships, it is not necessarily a good thing that all theatres should be congregated together. The argument, I would remind your Lordships, is that if you queue up at one theatre and find that you are not likely to get in, you can "nip along" to another theatre very quickly and join another queue with a better chance of getting in. I think that that argument
  350
  has only to be stated for the absurdity of it to be appreciated.
  There was the argument, which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, put before your Lordships, that even if action were taken to prevent the erection of offices, there would be nothing to prevent the use of the theatre by the owner as a skating rink. I think the noble Lord said—
  LORD BLACKFORD: Turkish baths, the noble Lord said.
  LORD SILKIN:—or for some other purpose. I think that it would be possible to prevent that under our planning legislation. I do not want to go into technicalities, but there is no reason why the London County Council cannot restrict the use to a theatre if they wish to do so. Then we have been told, since the debate, that this theatre does not comply with certain by-laws—that it is a fire trap and so on. I do not know whether that is correct or not; it is the first I have heard of it. Certainly the London County Council have taken no action to enforce the by-laws all this time, and no question has been raised about them. But if there are any fire difficulties, is there any inherent reason why they should not be put right?
  The purpose of my Motion is to get a breathing space, and, if possible, to prevent demolition starting in the next few days. One method of doing that would be to revoke the decision of the Council; and, of course, the Minister can do that, subject to the right of whoever is the owner at the present time to have a public inquiry and to receive compensation if the revocation is upheld. If there are other means of preventing demolition, possibly by agreement, so much the better. The fact is that even though it may be regarded as improper to enforce upon the ratepayers of London, or upon the taxpayers, the burden of paying compensation, there are people who care for this theatre sufficiently to contribute towards the cost of paying the proper compensation and so ensuring its future. What I am asking the Government to do is to give us the necessary time to ensure that sufficient money, as we think necessary, can be raised.
  We have had a wonderful lead from Sir Winston Churchill, who has promised, if a fund is started, to contribute £500. I

  351
  am informed, and verily believe—I can only speak from information—that there are two American millionaires (whether they are millionaires in dollars or millionaires in pounds, I do not know) who are prepared to make substantial contributions towards saving this theatre and, I gather, not merely in order to pay compensation but to ensure that in future the theatre will be retained as a theatre. I am authorised to give their names; I would not have done so otherwise. One is Mr. Huntington-Hartford and the other is a Mr. Cort. I am also authorised to say that the Piccadilly and St. James's Association, which is an association of large industrialists, and not of artists of any kind, is prepared to sponsor a fund to raise the money to save the theatre. One of the objects of the Association is to safeguard the historic tradition of the area, and the Association would regard the sponsoring of such a fund as in keeping with the objects it is trying to achieve.
  That is all that I wish to say. I hope that, even at this late hour, the Government will not say, "No," to this modest request for somehow holding up the demolition of the theatre until it has been possible to raise the necessary money and, in the terms of my Motion, until there has been an opportunity for Parliament to declare its view on the subject. I fully realise the difficulty of expecting at the present time that the whole of 'his compensation, or even a substantial amount of it, should be met out of public funds. From that point of view, I could not possibly have chosen a worse day than to-day, after the debate on the Finance Bill. But it is not the purpose of this Resolution to ask for public money. We hope and believe that there will be sufficient private money available to save this theatre, and we are simply asking that sufficient time should be afforded to us to see whether that is so. If we fail, then I am afraid that the cause is lost. But if we are able to succeed, in my view it would be criminal on the part of the Government to allow this mistake, this thing that they deplore, to happen without giving us a chance to make our final effort. I beg to move.
  Moved, to resolve, That in the opinion of this House, no action should be taken to demolish or otherwise prejudice the continued use of the St. James's Theatre
  352
  as a theatre pending a decision on the matter by both Houses of Parliament.—(Lord Silkin.)
  6.40 p.m.
  LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion of the noble Lord. Lord Silkin. He has rightly and inevitably referred to the debate on the subject that took place in this House on the 9th of this month. Like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I do not wish to repeat in detail the arguments which I then advanced, but it is necessary to give them in outline, because those arguments have not changed. The first point, and, I think, the most vital one for the House to hear in mind is the last of those put by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in recapitulating the points that he made in the earlier debate. It concerns the question: What is the development which the local planning authority have sanctioned? That development is the erection of a great office building.
  The first thing that the House must bear in mind is that that development would be demonstrably contrary to the public interest, apart from the theatre altogether. It is most vital that that point should not be overlooked. The point has been admitted by the local planning authority, who say that they regret their action and would not do it now. It was admitted by the present Minister's predecessor, when he talked about this case as "one that had slipped through." It has on several occasions been admitted by the present Minister, and it is set forth at length in the annual Report of his Department published a short time ago; and it has been admitted by him in answer to Parliamentary Questions in another place. The point is really not the subject of dispute at all.
  The House may have observed that the London County Council recently published some illustrations of what they call their scheme for the St. James's area, a scheme definitely laying down that office accommodation, unaccompanied by housing and so forth, was here contrary to the public interest. Therefore I say, without any fear of contradiction, that there is no dispute anywhere that the development which has been sanctioned and which, unless it is stopped, will take place, is a development admittedly contrary to the public interest. That is the first point, and not a negligible one. I

  353
  ventured on the last occasion to quote some acute observations from the Economist on this subject, but I do not intend to repeat them. The noble Lord, Lord Si1kin, mentioned part of the argument. This continued building of great office accommodation in the centre of London is gradually bringing London to a standstill and is utterly undesirable.
  I pass to the second point: that this undesirable development involves an act of vandalism. It involves the destruction of a well-loved London theatre, which is serving its purpose: it is one of the best theatres for the type of comedy which has been one of the glories both of the English stage and of English acting, and it is a great draw for overseas visitors. It will be observed that I put this point as the second point. It is absurd to justify what is admittedly contrary to the public interest by saying that in this case it is also to be accompanied by an act of vandalism.
  What then, my Lords, is the duty of the Minister in that condition of affairs? On the last occasion I ventured to express a legal doubt about the advice that must have been given him. I make no complaint whatever that the Minister who replied to that debate was not immediately then able to deal with my legal point, but I shall be interested to hear what he has to say on the matter to-day. I am certain that there were passages in his speech on that occasion which would not: have been included, if my legal point had been raised before that debate took place. I do not wish to indulge in many technicalities, but I should like to remind the House of certain points regarding the scheme of our planning legislation. Since 1943 we have had a Minister with responsibility for national policy with regard to the use and development of land throughout this country. In 1943 it was the newly created Minister of Town and Country Planning, but the Minister now is the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
  What is the working of our planning machinery under the supervision of that Minister? The working is this. Every application for leave to develop land goes, in the first instance, to the local planning authority for decision, and in most cases what the local planning authority decide is not questioned. It has, however, long been recognised, and universally recog
  354
  nised by every person interested in town and country planning, that there are two ways in which the local planning authority can go wrong. The local planning authority can go wrong by refusing consent in a case where consent ought to be granted, or by granting consent in a case where consent ought not to be granted. Each of those mistakes was a mistake which the local planning authority might make, and it was, therefore, necessary under our planning legislation to take steps to provide against both those two classes of mistake. In the former class, the case where the applicant is refused consent by the local authority, the applicant has, and always has had the right of appeal to the Minister. In the latter class, the case where consent is given, but where in the public interest it ought not to have been given, the Minister can himself cause a revocation of the consent. While the first of those rights existed from the very beginning of planning legislation, the second one only came into existence subsequently to 1943. I am delighted to see on the Front Bench opposite the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, because he may remember that he and I were both engaged in considering what should be the planning machinery which began to be brought into existence in the year 1943.
  In the first case I have described, the case where a man had been refused permission to develop land, of course it was quite simple to give him a right of appeal, but in the latter case, where permission had been granted but in the public interest ought to be questioned, there was no obvious person to whom to give the right of appeal. It might be general damage to the public interest, and for that reason it was decided not to give any specific person or body a right of appeal against the consent but to empower the Minister to revoke it. I venture to remind the House of those facts because they are very material for understanding what it is now proper for the Minister to do and for understanding where the noble Lord who replied to the last debate and who is to reply again to-night went wrong, in my respectful submission, on the last occasion.
  The Minister, in the passage in his speech which I wish to question, treated as quite normal the fact that the Minister might have to interfere with the local

  355
  planning authority's decision when it had refused an application to develop, but said it would be quite inconsistent with that if, except on the rarest conceivable occasion, he interfered with a planning decision granting the application. In my respectful submission the Minister was quite wrong. There is no contrast between the duties of the Minister in these two sets of circumstances. In either case, when he has to review the decision of the local planning authority, he has to consider: is this, or is it not, the right use of this particular piece of land? If it is the wrong use, then it is just as much his duty to use his power to stop it as it is, in a proper case, to grant the appeal of an aggrieved person who wishes to develop.
  But my noble friend had another passage in the same part of his speech in which, in my submission, he went wrong again. He said that, if the Minister revoked or caused the revocation of the permission to develop the land, injustice would be suffered. But Parliament in its wisdom has specifically made provision in the planning legislation to prevent injustice, should there be a revocation. It is contained in the two sections mentioned by my noble friend in answer to a Parliamentary Question which I asked him. It is the compensation given by Section 22 of the Act of 1947 as amended by Section 38 of the Act of 1954. I will not trouble the House by referring to earlier statutory powers to revoke permission wrongly given. They are now contained in Section 100 of the Act of 1947. It has been admitted, as I say, by the London County Council, and admitted by the present Minister and his predecessor, that the proposed development is wrong and contrary to public policy. I submit that in these circumstances it is the Minister's duty to use his powers under Section 100 of the 1947 Act to remedy the evil.
  I now come to the point with which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has already dealt: what would be the good of revoking this permission? My first observation is that, if it is the duty of the Minister to revoke it in order to correct a mistake, he should do so in any event, whether or not it would save the theatre. But, as a matter of fact, there is no reason whatever to suppose that it would not save the theatre. I was astonished by some
  356
  of the suggestions in the Minister's speech of July 9 that revocation would be useless. Neither the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, nor I, nor as far as I know anybody else, has ever suggested that there ought to be a building preservation order for this particular theatre. But in answer to a Parliamentary Question, in which I asked about the history of the transactions and who would now have a claim for compensation and what was the basis of the estimate of its amount that had been made, the Minister, having answered my Question to the best of his ability, then went on with the utterly irrelevant information, for which nobody had asked him [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 205 (No. 94), col. 32]:
  "Even if permission to erect an office block on the site of the St. James's Theatre were revoked, and compensation paid, that would provide no guarantee of the St. James's Theatre continuing in existence as a theatre. The owner could pull it down, or keep it empty, or turn it into a Turkish bath or cinema, without permission from anybody."
  That is very interesting, and a similar point was made by Mr. Hayward, the leader of the London County Council majority Party, in a letter to The Times, when he pointed out that, even if there were revocation, it would still be possible to develop the site for any use under the general heading of places of assembly.
  I submit that it is irrelevant to the duty of the Minister, as I have explained it, that, if he withdrew the consent, it would not save the theatre. But why on earth should it be assumed that the present owner would do any of these things? He may be disappointed, no doubt, that he cannot make the profit which he contemplated by letting or selling a new building for offices. But why should Ministers assume that he would be so utterly irresponsible or filled with such sadistic malice towards the people of London that he would pull down the theatre simply in order to vent his anger? There is no reason to suppose—at least, I hope not—that he would do anything of the kind. I do not know the new owner, but I should hesitate before I entertained so gloomy a view of the character of any man.
  I have given some description of what I conceive to be the law applicable to this case, and some of it may have appeared technical. I admit that I am moved in this matter not by legal considerations, though I hope I have stated

  357
  them correctly, but by a passionate love of my native city, where I still live, and by my conception of patriotism. London is a unique city. It is the greatest, and can remain the greatest, of all world capitals. That does not depend only upon the spirit of the people; it depends in part on their traditions, their surroundings and so forth. I believe this threat to the St. James's Theatre is part of a far greater threat. It is true that it is a great threat to the English stage for reasons admirably explained by Mr. Darlington in the Daily Telegraph of the 27th of this month.
  But the destruction of the St. James's Theatre does not stand alone. In conversations which I have had with my friends here and elsewhere, they ask, "Why do you care so much?", and then go on to put one of two alternative suggestions. They say, "Why not let this one go and make a fuss on the next occasion?" Or, alternatively, "Why do you bother at all? Do you not see that London is now past saving? Do you not see that the things you love have been handed over to the whims of speculators?" I see none of those things. I think London can still be saved and I know that it is worth saving. I think it was General Goering who said that, whenever he heard anybody mention the word "culture", he felt for his revolver. There are many people in this country to-day in the Goering tradition, and many of them have great influence in certain organs of the Press. I know that certain papers will give a whoop of delight, if we fail this evening, when the first man takes the pickaxe to the St. James's Theatre. The only thing that will increase their joy is when the London Library follows and shares the same fate, and when the axe is laid to the Nash terraces round Regent's Park.
  I believe, my Lords, that there is a great deal to be said for an earlier belief in London. I would counsel every Member of the House to refresh his memory of the magnificent passage in Areopagitica, where the blind Milton starts a great period with:
  "Behold now this vast city; a city of refuge, the mansion house of liberty …"
  My Lords, I expect some people may say all this is sentiment. I therefore pass to
  358
  some support which I think will not be open to that accusation. Many may be familiar with the Piccadilly and St. James's Association, formed as recently as 1950, an Association enjoying a membership of world-famous houses and businesses in this area. On the 12th of this month, less than three weeks ago, the Secretary of the Association wrote to his members about saving the St. James's Theatre. The response was overwhelmingly in favour. I have this package of repiies, but owing to the number of those who wish to speak I do not propose to read any of them. Some of them are very moving, from famous houses. Here I have one from Anthony Berry, of the famous Berry Brothers & Rudd, Limited, in those beautiful premises in St. James's Street. Another one I might mention is from the British Travel and Holidays Association. My Lords, in this overwhelming volume of correspondence the point is made that the St. James's Treatre should be saved in the interests of London, in the interests of business in the area, in the interests of the tourist trade, and in the national interest.
  I do not think that the Minister's direction to revoke the consent that has been given should depend on a fund being raised. I have given my reasons for that. Nevertheless, I would add this: that I have little doubt that, if the Government will give the necessary time, the required funds will be raised and that this Association will play a leading part in raising them. In my speech of July 9 I pointed out that the Minister could easily (under Section 100 of the Act of 1947) revoke the permission that had been given, but I said, even if it had been difficult to do this, what would have happened if a Minister had said: "This is a mischief which ought to be stopped but I do not see any easy way of stopping it" in any Administration over which Sir Winston Churchill presided? Well, my Lords, we know the answer to that one. I do not know if anybody thinks that any Party issue is involved tonight. I think there is none. But I say that no Conservative need hesitate to follow the advice of Sir Winston Churchill. My Lords, I beg the Government to do their duty. It is not too late. They can still save not only the St. James's Theatre but their own good name.
  7.5 p.m.
  LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, when I spoke on this matter in an earlier debate I was commenting upon an Unstarred Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I spoke spontaneously without any preparation whatever. In the course of my remarks I made an error, of taste, I think. I drew a comparison between the St. James's Theatre and another one, namely the Lyric, Hammersmith and comparisons are odious. I confess that I have not been to the Lyric, Hammersmith, for about four years, but my recollection then was of very uncomfortable seats and cold draughts. After my remarks I received a most courteous letter from the managing director of the Lyric, Hammersmith, in which he said that during the last four years he had entirely re-seated his theatre and had furnished it with electric heating, and that he thought it would compare in comfort with any West End theatre. I take his word for it, and I wish to apologise to him publicly for having drawn that odious comparison.
  Now, my Lords, with regard to the St. James's Theatre, I have received, of course, the usual number of abusive letters calling me an enemy of art and so forth—which is exactly the opposite of the truth. Far from being an enemy of the arts, I love all the arts. But I am an enemy of the proposition to wish this uneconomic affair on to the ratepayer or the taxpayer. That is all I am interested in. I do not wish the taxpayer or the ratepayer to be saddled with the purchase of the St. James's Theatre, or its future upkeep, because I believe that to be an uneconomic proposition.
  After my spontaneous speech in the last debate I thought I had better take the trouble to inform myself a little bit better about this subject, and so I went to see Mr. Prince Littler, the late owner, himself. I do not wish to become involved in controversy with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, over the merits of this structure. All I would say is that Mr. Littler himself, a life-long man of the theatre, described it, in a letter to the Daily Express, as "archaic." He showed me a diagram of the two circles, the upper circle and the dress circle, which showed that 51 seats in each circle faced the stage but that 146 seats in each circle did not face the stage and were badly sited. He reminded me
  360
  of the fact that although Sir Laurence Olivier had taken a lease of the theatre for seven years he put on only three productions there, and was constantly complaining, throughout the two successful productions during his management, of the bad seating arrangements and inconvenience of the theatre. Mr. Littler went on to say that sanitary accommodation is really bad beyond description, and that it is almost impossible to improve it, owing to its siting, in the cellar, and the plumbing difficulties involved. He also reminded me that twenty years ago his partner, Mr. Gilbert Millar, had applied to the London County Council for permission to refurbish and modernise this structure altogether, and that the L.C.C. had refused that permission. Very well then. In my opinion, the future of that theatre is bound to be very expensive and very uneconomic. That certainly is Mr. Littler's opinion, because he sold it.
  He told me that he had sold it as a going concern for £250,000, and that he had received a deposit. Lord Silkin tells us that the profit on the theatre for several years past averaged £27,000 a year net, which must be something like £45,000 a year gross, which would be an excellent return on £250,000. If Lord Silkin's figures are correct, and apply only to the St. James's Theatre and not to the accounts of a company which may include the St. James's Theatre amongst its other holdings (I do not want to go into that), it surprises me immensely that Mr. Littler, a business man who has been connected with the theatre all his life, and who is also a lover of the theatre, should sell such an apparently highly paying proposition as the one which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, describes. I should want a great deal more evidence of the net profit of the St. James's Theatre by itself—although it would, of course, be insulting if I were to say that I do not believe what the noble Lord said. But it seems to me that that point may require further investigation.
  Now, as a matter of "brass tacks", what is the present position? A contract has been entered into, and has been carried to fruition, by which Mr. Littler has sold that theatre for £250.000 to a buyer, whom I will call "Mr. Fenston", because that is the only name that has been mentioned in public in that connection; and I presume that Mr. Fenston

  361
  is now the owner of the theatre. What is it proposed to do? The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, was directed to an argument in favour of revoking the planning permission which was given by the London County Council. Of course, it is for the Minister, as the responsible person in this House to reply to the debate, to say whether retrospective legislation of that kind is the sort of thing which is likely to interest the Conservative Party.
  LORD CONESFORD: There is no question of retrospective legislation. It is the provisions of Section 100 of the 1947 Statute, an Act now amended by a Conservative Government.
  LORD BLACKFORD: Yes, but the point surely is that a contract has been entered into by this buyer and this seller under a certain planning permission which has been given. The noble Lord wishes to revoke that planning permission and thereby to invalidate the contract.
  LORD CONESFORD: No.
  LORD BLACKFORD: Not to invalidate the contract? Then what has been gained by that, because the contract stands? I should like to know how noble Lords intend to invalidate that contract because, if they cannot do it, then where are they? But, if they can do it, will not an action for damages lie by the purchaser or the seller against the London County Council in that connection? In the presence of so many legal luminaries, from an ex-Lord Chancellor downwards, I hesitate to go further into that matter, but it would seem to me that they have to answer that question: how are you going to get out of a contract which has been entered into and completed?
  The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, a man of resource, as usual came forward with an alternative plan, and I should not be surprised if it is advocated from those Benches later on in the debate. It is that a voluntary subscription should be raised and that the purchaser (whom I will call Mr Fenston) should be bought out. I am not opposed to that: I am all in favour of it. I hope that the noble Lord will be successful. But let us consider what amount he will have to find. It would seem that he must, of course, pay £250,000 to Mr. Fenston, because that
  362
  is the purchase price. Then On top of that I expect there would be another £5,000 for legal costs—for solicitors are always very expensive people—and so on; so that the total there might well come to £260,000. Then they must have some working capital to run this theatre in the future—and it certainly needs a lot of redecoration and alteration. I see that the fittings of the bar have already been removed—I saw a photograph in the Evening Standard. So that there would be a great deal of expenses, and I should have thought it would be unwise to enter on this proposition with a fund of less than £300,000 in order to set the theatre going on a proper basis.
  Mr. Felix Aylmer, at a well-advertised meeting in St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, as Chairman of Equity, the actors' trade union, specifically said that he was not in favour of any public subscription. Sir Laurence Olivier, at the same meeting, said that the Government ought to buy it and run it—those are his words. I am against that. That is the only reason I stand here, in defence of the taxpayer and the ratepayer. I am all in favour of this: if you can get a subscription to buy the St. James's Theatre, good luck to you!—provided that you will guarantee that, if it fails, you will not come along again and ask that the taxpayer or the ratepayer should find the money.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I am going to deal with this point later, but it is an important one and I will put it to the noble Lord now, if he will forgive me for doing so. Would he join us, therefore, in calling on the Government to take no irrevocable action, and to allow no irrevocable action to be taken, until those who have in mind the raising of a subscription have been given a fair chance to raise it?
  LORD BLACKFORD: Yes. I should not object at all to that. If those who are protagonists of the St. James's Theatre will give me or the Government a guarantee that they will not seek a subscription of public funds in any form to support the St. James's Theatre, then I would ask the Government, and Mr. Fenston, to postpone a start on pulling down the theatre until noble Lords opposite have been given a reasonable chance of raising the funds.
  LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord, Lord Blackford, has twice referred to "noble Lords opposite". I should like to assure him that this is in no sense a Party matter.
  LORD BLACKFORD: Quite so.
  LORD SILKIN: We have not got together as a Party.
  LORD BLACKFORD: No.
  LORD SILKIN: In fact, we have a free vote. I hope the same applies on the other side.
  LORD BLACKFORD: Yes.
  LORD SILKIN: The other thing is: will the noble Lord accept my assurance that in my speech I deliberately stated I was not making any plea for public money?
  LORD BLACKFORD: Quite so.
  LORD SILKIN: I was not doing that; I recognise the difficulties.
  LORD BLACKFORD: Yes. Then that is all I want. So long as no money is to fall on public funds, by all means good luck to the St. James's Theatre! I hope that you will raise your £300.000. My experience of raising amounts of that sort has always been that you milk the usual cows first; they produce about £100,000, and then they run completely dry. Whether the usual cows—namely, the banks, insurance companies, breweries and other people like that—will join in the subscription remains to be seen. But as to raising £300,000 to buy the St. James's Theatre, unless it is put up by one or two millionaires, all I can say is that I very much doubt whether it can be done. I hope that it can. That is all I have to say.
  7.18 p.m.
  LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I am not going to offer any opposition to the Motion which my noble friend has moved. If this theatre can be preserved, I shall certainly be delighted. One of my earliest recollections of visiting a theatre in London is of this very one. but my recollection depends upon the brilliance of the acting and not upon the nature of the theatre. I should like to take just a moment of your Lordships' time to make clear what the position of the London County Council was
  364
  with regard to this matter. They were approached as the planning authority, and it was in that capacity that they acted. They were asked to give consent to the redevelopment of the site as offices, and that consent was given in accordance with the provisions of the Draft County of London Plan, as it then stood.
  Some six months later, when the Plan was approved by the Minister, it was approved with the insertion of a direction that consent should not normally be given to a change of use either from residential or from a place of public assembly to offices. But the consent in principle to the use of this site as offices had already been given; and of course that permission attaches to the site. It does not matter who obtains the consent: whether he is the owner or a prospective purchaser, or whatever he may be, the consent attaches to the site, and the site is sold with the benefit of it thereafter. Let me point out, also, that although the Plan, as approved by the Minister, contained a direction that, in general, consent was not to be given to change to office accommodation, it is still the case that the central zone is zoned for shops. for blocks of flats and for other purposes, and that there is no direction against a change of user from a place of public assembly to any of those uses. Therefore. it would be open to the owner of such a site as this to apply for permission to use it for shops or for residential accommodation, as in fact a great deal of the neighbouring property is used. However that may be, that is what happened—the consent was given upon the basis of the Plan as it then stood.
  The theatre was one of those contained in a list of buildings of architectural or historical interest, but it was only in the third category of such buildings, and there was no reason to expect that it would be designated as a building which was not to be altered. I believe that no list has yet been published for London, and therefore what the Minister's ultimate decision may be. I do not know. I presume that it lies in his power, if he chooses, to publish a partial list; and if he thought that this building ought to be included in it. no doubt he could say so. That, of course, would have the result of preventing anybody from pulling it down. It would not compel the owner

  365
  to keep it up, and he could, if he pleased, allow it to sink into gradual decay, as has happened with other buildings of which noble Lords will be aware. Therefore, the position, quite clearly, is that either public funds had to be provided in order to preserve this theatre or else private funds had to be provided in order to preserve it. That is the position. I am not opposed to the Resolution; I merely wanted to make it quite clear what the position of the planning authority was.
  7.25 p.m.
  LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I deeply regret the probable loss of the St. James's Theatre: and, as earlier speakers have said, the short and easy answer is to revoke the planning permission. But as I understand it, that would mean that the London County Council would have to pay a considerable sum in compensation. Supposing that were done, what would then happen? I think this is the weak point of the case of the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Conesford. There is no certainty that the St. James's would continue to run as a theatre. It has been sold by the existing management to a property group or company, or whatever it is, who have no knowledge of the theatre, and it is by no means certain that another management could be found to run it. It might, as the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, has said, fall into decay.
  Several noble Lords have mentioned that a substantial fund might be raised, and that promises have already been made in order to save the theatre. We all know that Sir Winston Churchill has given a lead by offering a substantial subscription. I hope that this fund will be raised, and I think I am right in saying that the Minister has stated that, should such a fund be in existence, it might alter the whole picture, and that in certain circumstances he might have second thoughts in the matter. I believe that the responsibility for the present unfortunate state of affairs must rest squarely on the London County Council, and I think the Government can, in fairness, put heavy pressure on that body to find a way out.
  I believe that there is a way out, and I believe it to be this. The London County Council should be asked, as a matter of urgency, to reconsider their
  366
  building restrictions on new theatres. I believe that by using modern fireproof materials considerable relaxation can be made, with safety. I believe that it is quite feasible, possible and safe, to build a new modern theatre underneath an office block. I understand that three theatres have recently been built in New York in that way, and I do not believe that there is any longer a necessity to insist upon an island site, which makes any possible site for a theatre so rare and so expensive that it almost puts a bar on building a new theatre.
  With these restrictions relaxed, I believe that it would be possible to erect an economic building on the present site of the St. James's Theatre, to use both as a theatre and an office block; and it might be possible for the Minister to revoke the present order or allow it to be amended so that building could take place to include a new theatre. In fact a new St. James's might then rise. with none of the disadvantages of the present structure—and, in fairness, one must say that the present structure has considerable disadvantages, although in many ways it is a useful and attractive theatre. The new theatre could incorporate all the latest mechanical and technical improvements and would have no bad seats. This new theatre would be a commercial proposition and an object worthy of any St. James's Theatre Fund. The famous actress said to me the other day, "We are like skilled artisans without enough factories in which to work."
  I hope that this debate will help in three ways. I hope it will help to stop the loss of any more theatres; that it will enable new theatres to be built economically, and that it will at least delay the demolition of the St. James's Theatre until the alternative possibilities have been examined.
  My Lords, I have gone rather outside the terms of the Resolution, but I appeal to the Government to take note of the strong feelings which have been aroused, as shown by that most orderly and moving demonstration—probably the greatest demonstration that the theatrical profession has ever made—in St. Martin's Churchyard last Saturday. There are also strong feelings outside the profession. I hope Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to help the theatre

  367
  generally and to give further thought to the particular case under discussion.
  7.30 p.m.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, first I must express my gratitude to several noble Lords who have permitted me to intervene at this moment. By an error my name was not put on the list. I shall not be long. The amazing thing about this debate is that it is supposed to be a debate about the theatre. I am a theatre-goer, in the gallery or the pit, but nobody has mentioned me or, what is more important, the people who really make the theatre. This has been a real estate debate, with questions like, "How much can you raise?—£250,000? That will not do," and an unfair dig at solicitors and their charges.
  I came here not to deny the validity of those arguments, for, of course, the rising site value of London is its great asset. That is how London became better governed. But the thing that we are talking about is something quite different, something which cannot be measured, even by the noble Lord, Lord Blackford—that is, what is the value of this living theatre, the people who work hard, who have a precarious hold on their occupation and are not particularly well paid? It is perfectly obvious that, however good they are, they can never compete with the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, and his friends who know where to get the money. Even if you put David Garrick and Gertie Millar at the box office, how are you going to compete with thirty-seven storeys and constant hot water? It is impossible. It cannot be done, and that fact must be faced at the outset.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, they could try Sabrina.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: We are dealing with two competing values, and if you are going to make your standard that of the slave market at Muscat then the living theatre is finished. It is because I see in the move of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—asking Her Majesty's Government to take action—a pause which may possibly give an opportunity for the growth of some of the ideas put by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. and the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, very movingly, that I speak,
  368
  and I do not think your Lordships will mind if I go to the general issue that is. involved, which is a rather different question from that of debentures and the rest, about which I really do not know anything at all.
  The first thing one has to ask is: is the living theatre dying? The second question one has to ask is: is it worth saving? I do not think there is much doubt that it is dying, if one looks at the list of theatres—and here I include music halls when I am speaking of the legitimate stage. I am a Londoner and I am speaking as a Londoner. My territorial limit is the sound of Bow Bells and I must include the music hall as very much a part of the living theatre. People say that forty or fifty years ago (and I go beyond that) there were thirty-nine or forty theatres in central London and that there are still that number. Yes, but who fills them? People who come from the suburbs. What happened to the suburban theatres? They have all been destroyed or shut up. so that we have 40,000 theatre seats for a population which one would put at perhaps 5 million.
  The music halls have entirely vanished, yet they had an enormous value. I have sat for a London seat and I know that. They have local value, they have social value and they have national value. Where are they all? I am not speaking only of the big ones, though I might ask, where is the Empire, where Sir Winston Churchill made a very impressive speech from the stage in the 'nineties? Where is the Alhambra. which was one of the most interesting?—because a well-known religious weekly Good Words was in fact edited at the box office. Where is the Tivoli? At the moment they are actually pulling down the Tivoli, and if you go all over London you will find the same destruction. Where is the Canterbury? Probably many noble Lords have never heard of the Canterbury, which was the lighterman's theatre. Where is the Pavilion in Whitechapel? Where is the Poplar Queen's? Some of them survive but most have gone, and those that are left are in danger.
  Now I come to something which is very daring because it is an attempt to appeal to your Lordships for what the theatre does and contributes to the life of the people. Perhaps now that they have

  369
  pulled down the Gaiety and Daly's, the House of Lords does not take so much interest in the matter. But I will give one or two illustrations of the inner value of the living stage. First of all consider what is called the patriotic side. There is a great deal too much argument nowadays. In my youth patriotism was a thing one sang about. One did not know much about it. Rudyard Kipling was the first person to introduce political argument into a popular song when he wrote that silly ballad The Absent Minded Beggar, but in the old days popular opinion was led from the music hall and the theatre. We may have a White Paper on defence, but one song from Vesta Tilley would really do more for recruitment; a song from George Lashwood or Haydn Coffin—for example,
  "I'll go down in the angry wave."
  would stir your hearts. When Vesta Tilley or. I should say, Lady de Frece, sang,
  "I joined the Army yesterday so the Army of to-day's all right".
  that was a definite patriotic appeal. Where are we now going to sing
  "It's a long way to Tipperary",
  if we pull down all the music halls?
  I am not speaking against the cinemas—why should I?—but there is in the music hall a degree of domestic intimacy and mutuality between the stage and the audience which one can never get in any of the cinemas. When George Robey came on the stage and lifted his hat or waved or said "Desist!" one felt that one had been personally invited to the entertainment and felt "good". A square mile of glorious technicolour could never give you a feeling of that kind.
  LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, George Robey never appeared at the St. James's Theatre.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am coming to the St. James's Theatre in a moment. I have ventured to cover the whole field of the living stage and I am talking of something which the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, never mentioned at all, namely, the people who make the living stage by acting on the living stage. We have left the field of finance for a moment for another relevant question. People go up and down Harley Street consulting psychoanalysts; but can they add anything to Marie Lloyd's advice,
  370
  "A little of what you fancy does you good!"?
  I do not know whether your Lordships even remember Dan Leno (everyone is so young nowadays), but when he was, as he told us, elected to the City Council and applied his shrewd common sense to public problems he explained how he was getting on; that he was a man for compromise and, for example, if some streets were hilly, he said, then let us compromise; let us be satisfied with trams that go down. It was an appeal to reason, something which satisfied your sense of the happy mean. I attribute to listening to Dan Leno my early appreciation of the leaders in The Times.
  The noble Lord, Lord Blackford, asked, "What about St. James's Theatre?" That is a serious question. I have been dealing with the lighter side but not the least important side. First of all, St. James's Theatre is not the only theatre that is in danger. The Haymarket is in danger. I am speaking as a playgoer, when I was much younger.
  LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, what evidence has the noble and gallant Viscount that the Haymarket is in danger?
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Well, I have no inside information, but I know that the Carlton Hotel is next door. The Haymarket theatre is the one next door to the Carlton Hotel is it not?
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, Her Majesty's.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am afraid I was confused, but whatever the name of the place is it is in danger. They are pulling down the hotel—what is the hotel called?
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: The Carlton.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The neighbouring theatre is being endangered, and I am making a serious appeal. I remember well how when I was young I went night after night and sat in the gallery and saw Sarah Bernhardt play every one of her famous rôles—Phédre. The Lady of the Camellias, Tosca and above all L'Aiglon. How can I ever forget how that old lady with a wooden leg tore our hearts out with the cross-examination of L'Aiglon?
  "Since I saw you last what have you done?"
  and the reply:
  "J'ai grandi."

  371
  If the noble Lord wants to hear of another interesting point I will tell him that in the neighbouring hotel, whatever its name, the eminent cook Escoffier was assisted by another eminent man called Ho Chi Minh.
  LORD BLACKFORD: I am only waiting for the noble and gallant Viscount to say something about the matter under discussion. Up to date he has not said a single word about the St. James's Theatre or a single performer who has appeared there.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Lord, Lord Blackford, is simply thinking of the one thing—that is, of the estate problems involved. I have gone further and I have tried to put on this a wider and, as I think, deeper and much more important interpretation. In view of my constant errors of fact and the disapproval of the noble Lord I will not go too far. But I must mention the Lyceum Theatre. I do not know how many of your Lordships here ever heard Sir Henry Irving at the Lyceum. One of the plays in which he appeared was a story of Waterloo and he took the part of Corporal Brewster.
  "It wouldn't have done for the Dook. He'd have had a word to say".
  I shall never forget that. Does the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, wish to know what that has to do with the theatre?
  LORD BLACKFORD: I want to know what it has got to do with the St. James's Theatre. That is the subject under discussion. I am sorry I was not here when the noble Viscount first rose. Unfortunately I missed some minutes of his speech. But I have been here for quite a lot of time, and as usual I have been much entertained by his spontaneous remarks. He has ranged over a very wide field, but he has not mentioned for one moment the greatest enemy of the living theatre, television. Apart from that, he has not said one word about the subject under discussion—the St. James's Theatre.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I must be excused if I take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—namely, the question of whether State aid should be given to the theatre—and on that point base the broadcast case.
  372
  My last example, and the most moving in my experience, was when the two Coquelins brought the play Cyrano de Bergerac over here for a first night at the Lyceum. I am sure the noble Lord will permit me to quote two sentences from that play, because when you speak about the theatre as if it were something light and did not matter—as if all that counted was that the shareholders should get their 10 per cent. or whatever it was—I would ask your Lordships to remember the immense moral power that exists on the stage over those who go to listen. In my judgment Cyrano de Bergerac is the finest play ever written. How I remember almost the last lines in the play when Cyrano is defending the "forlorn hope." He is saying, in effect, we do not battle for success; the forlorn hope is the something that inspires us.
  "Mais on ne se hat pas dans l'espoir du succés.
  Non, Non, c'est bien plus beau lorsque c'est inutile."
  My Lords, this is what The Times calls an
  "emotional and belated appeal to tradition".
  It offends the good, practical, business sense of Lord Blackford. But I hope that it contributes something to the occasion. Those words which I have just quoted often think of myself when I have—as all too frequently happens—to face the icy displeasure of your Lordships' House.
  Finally, I would recall that Lord Gifford made some practical suggestions. should like to see some of them considered. The first of them was: do not let us be taken by surprise. Lord Silkin also made this point. No one knew that this was going to happen to the St. James's Theatre (I hope the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, will note that I have now mentioned the St. James's Theatre). No one knew about this. So that is the first thing; you must not be taken by surprise. The second thing is that there should be something devised in the nature of a clause demanding alternative accommodation. It might well be, as Lord Gifford in his practical speech suggested, in the same building. I believe that that is what is going to happen at the Stoll; indeed that is what is happening in New York in the case of the Rockefeller Centre.
  LORD BLACKFORD: May I point out that that is not the substance of the

  373
  appeal of Lord Silkin and Lord Conesford? They do not want alternative accommodation provided in some new building; they want to preserve what one of them has described as "an architectural gem". When the noble Viscount talks about providing a living theatre in that building or somewhere else, that is not what Lord Silkin wants. What Lord Silkin wants is to preserve what he describes as an architectural gem, a temple of histrionic tradition. He does not want a new theatre in a new building.
  LORD GIFFORD: The noble Viscount was good enough to commend certain suggestions which I have made. He was discussing my suggestion and not what Lord Conesford or Lord Silkin said. I hope that I did make practical suggestions
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Lord tells me that Lord Silkin wanted a jewel preserved. I did not realise that. The Party system has completely broken down in this House and it is a tragic fact that we are now trying to discuss questions on their merits. If you add to the alternative accommodation some measure of State or civic aid there is hope. I remember a time when people like Lord Blackford objected to music in the parks. They said it was a waste of public money. But civic patronage of the Arts has now been recognised as a necessity of good citizenship. The Government have recognised it in relieving by £2,250,000—I believe that is the figure—the taxes on the live show. The London County Council spend £250,000 a year, in one way or another, in the support or protection of the Arts. Along those lines, if the Motion is carried to a Division I should vote for it. I would beg the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to take a wider view. Do not, of course, forget what Lord Blackford said about shares, debentures, et cetera in the St. James's Theatre, but do also remember that we are dealing here with the living stage, something which is a very precious cultural tradition.
  7.50 p.m.
  LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, there is not a great deal that I should like to say in continuing this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will forgive me if I deal with his Motion in slightly broader terms and look at the problem from the point
  374
  of view of the actors. I believe that this is of the greatest importance. The whole acting profession is concerned with the proposed demolition of the St. James's Theatre, the basis being that another theatre is going. In the last few years the acting profession has had a very hard time. It is a highly competitive life and only the best talents manage to pierce their heads through. I think it is true to say that we have the finest acting profession in the world and it is important to realise that our stage actors and actresses are the very core of the cinema, which is a more modern art, and of television. It has happened over and over again that in the casting of some of the greatest films that have been made, producers have always dropped back to the professional actor.
  I was interested to hear it said in this debate, and it has been said before in your Lordships' House, that television will destroy the British stage. In that connection. I saw an extremely interesting article the other day, in which it said that one of the main American television companies in New York have suddenly found themselves unable to place all their time in their leading programmes for the coming year. I think that these things revolve in a circle. Therefore, I am convinced that it is our duty to help the acting profession as much as we possibly can. if theatres are going to be pulled down, that backwashes right down through the whole profession, affecting the normal repertory companies, which are the basis for all training of our actors and actresses, right back to the drama schools. I do not see how any young actor or actress, however much he or she may have the profession of the stage at heart, can possibly hope to be able to make a name if we do not take a firm line on this question.
  I was glad to hear this afternoon that the situation may be saved by the raising of private finance. I should like to remind Her Majesty's Government that, although on a slightly different scale, if it had not been for the Government stepping in at the end of the war, we should not have been able to have the Royal Opera House. As many of your Lordships may remember, the Royal Opera House was a dance hall throughout the war and there was every indication that it was going to remain so afterwards. I am glad to say that the

  375
  Government, in consultation with many authorities, took a very strong line about this, and finally the Royal Opera House was saved from the land of Jazz to give our national ballet and opera a home. As the hour is late, I should like to end by supporting this Motion to the fullest extent, particularly from the point of view I have tried to lay before your Lordships.
  7.55 p.m.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, in the last debate in your Lordships' House on this subject, on July 9, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, based one of his main arguments on the fact that the St. James's Theatre is not included in the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historical importance, although he did point out that it appears on the supplementary list of lower grading. I have the greatest respect for the Advisory Committee on buildings of this kind. It consists mostly of distinguished architects, but I notice that no member of the theatrical profession and no historian of the theatre sat at any time on that Committee. One wonders, if the theatre had been represented, whether a different decision would not have been arrived at. The list is of buildings not only of special architectural interest but also of historic interest, and this theatre has the greatest interest to all lovers of the stage. Last night I was talking to a well-known actor, one of the most distinguished actors of the older school. I asked him what it was that made the St. James's Theatre mean so much more to him than any other theatre in London, and he replied: "This theatre, more than any other, has had a constant tradition of successful actor managers." That is a tradition which has lasted from the days of the late Sir George Alexander to the time when Sir Laurence Olivier and Lady Olivier had a tenure of this theatre. That is a vital tradition, which I think will die if the theatre is demolished.
  I think that another great attraction of this theatre is its location. On July 9, Mr. St. John Ervine wrote a letter to The Times in which he said that he would see the theatre demolished with no regret, because it was not in Shaftesbury Avenue. I have the greatest respect for Mr. St. John Ervine, but I am afraid that I cannot agree with him here, and I know that
  376
  a great many people who go to the theatre would not agree with him either. For me, one of the greatest attractions of the St. James's Theatre is that it is not in Shaftesbury Avenue. It is in a quiet cul-de-sac where, in clement months, one can walk in King Street, St. James's during the interval, away from the noise and bustle of the crowd.
  In to-day's issue of The Times there is an article entitled, "Ringing Down Too Many Curtains." What a very true title that is! This article describes how the present trend of the theatre is away from the large music halls and theatres to the smaller type of house where in the present day more intimate plays can be acted. The article says—and here, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to quote a sentence:
  "Because it falls into this category on the grounds of size, the proposed demolition of the St. James's is deplored by managers and British Actors' Equity Association quite apart from considerations of architecture and tradition."
  I think that it was clear in the last debate that now permission for demolition would not have been given. In fact, demolition has been decided upon only as a result of the tragic chain of misunderstandings and circumstances. No one wants the theatre to be demolished. The Government do not want it—how can they? The London County Council do not want it—how can they, when they are doing so much for the arts in so many different directions? The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, does not want it he made clear at the beginning of his speech in the last debate where his sympathies lie. The people of this country, I feel quite certain, do not want it.
  This Resolution is phrased in very moderate and statesmanlike terms, as one would expect from my noble friend Lord Silkin. It merely moves to resolve
  "That … no action should be taken … pending a decision on the matter by both Houses of Parliament."
  Various suggestions have been made in this debate. My noble friend Lord Silkin has mentioned the generous offers that have been made by friends of this country in the United States, by the Piccadilly and St. James's Association, in London, and by various other well-wishers, not least of whom is Sir Winston Churchill. And the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, in an interesting speech, has

  377
  pointed out that it might be possible for a new theatre to be included in the new building that is constructed. For all these reasons, I think that there should be a full-scale inquiry, and that Parliament should be given the right to put forward its view before any final decision is made. That is why I shall support the Resolution most warmly.
  8.1 p.m.
  LORD MOYNE: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment from a practical angle? I think it would be unfortunate if the Government were to take the line of the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, of giving no more than time to raise money for a voluntary contract. Planning permission was, in fact, given by mistake: the application, as Mr. Sandys said, "slipped through." Therefore, if money is to be raised by the theatre, it ought to be limited to the amount that would have been payable as compensation. I do not want to see the Government simply sit back and give time. The owner might ask "the earth." I want the Government to say to the owner, "Look here; unless you accept the amount you would have got as compensation, we shall revoke the planning permission, which was given by mistake." I want them to say: "We intend to appoint a referee to work out what compensation would have been due if payable by the County Council." Furthermore, I suggest that it would not be unreasonable that some part of the compensation should be borne by the County Council who, after what has happened, cannot regard themselves as free from responsibility and who, anyway, have a duty, and I believe an inclination, to support the living theatre.
  8.3 p.m.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I think any friends of the theatre must have been heartened by the speeches to which we have listened to-day. There has been an almost complete solidarity and a readiness to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. It is not my task to point out any minor differences, and I should say that there has been almost total solidarity behind the line the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has taken. I am particularly happy to feel that on this occasion the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, has made quite plain his point of view. I am not one to cast stones
  378
  at bankers, as I am a humble practitioner in that profession, where the noble Lord is much more experienced. I appreciate his financial standpoint, though I do not share it in this particular context. But when it comes to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, we find that Lord Blackford also is urging the Government to hold their hand. I would personally support strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, has just said; but I would emphasise that the Motion the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has put before the House does not include the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moyne.
  Behind the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, I think all stand completely united. Those who are following this debate from the galleries may be even more optimistic than I am about the outcome of the evening's proceedings. One cannot help noticing with a certain foreboding a cluster of Ministers. No doubt, as the evening has worn on. their interest has increased. But it is not altogether an encouraging sign to those who know the working of the Party machine. I hope that on this occasion there will be a genuine expression of free opinion, and that many eminent Members who are tied will not be allowed to sway the issue in favour of this "mistake," to which much reference has been made.
  This is not a Party issue, and we have heard many splendid speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has never been seen to greater advantage, and I have never heard in this House a much more moving speech than that of the noble Lord. Lord Conesford. But what, to me, and to my political friends, is most striking is the number of Conservatives, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, including Lord Gifford, Lord St. Just and Lord Moyne, who have taken precisely the same line as that adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. So I think that one can fairly say that this matter rises above and beyond Party issues and aspects. The widest question of principle involved is not, I think, in dispute. It has been stated in various ways today, and it was put well in a recent article in the Manchester Guardian. They pointed out that it is by no means unheard of for a planning authority to refuse permission to what would have been a profitable development for the sake of preserving natural beauty. If I may

  379
  quote the Manchester Guardian, they said:
  "We must accept it that profitable developments can reasonably be restrained in the interest of the Arts also."
  That, as a general proposition, I think would be accepted by noble Lords in all quarters of the House, including members of the Government.
  I know that the noble Lord Lord Mancroft, is a lover of the Arts, and that he has many old programmes of the St. James's Theatre, or photographs, gazing at him, perhaps, from his mantelpiece. I hope they will not be ghosts which feel they will have to turn and haunt him after to-day's discussion. I feel that the noble Lord must be in a difficult position. May I put it to him plainly?—because I think I have never failed in this House to do justice to his talents as a speaker. He left a strong impression on the last occasion (I read his speech the other day, and a very good speech it was, from many points of view) that if he had his way this licence would be revoked. He talked about his own feelings, and said that they could not govern the matter. What he actually said was:
  "My own feelings are quite immaterial in this matter."
  But if I may say so, I think his convictions are most material, and to-night we look to him for a speech which expresses his convictions, which we are entitled to look for from any Minister, because a Minister is not just a hired official of the Government, but shares their responsibility. I hope the noble Lord, a lover of the theatre, will feel that responsibility heavily when he comes to wind up this debate. As I say, we have the principle universally accepted: that it may be right for a Government to intervene in the interest of the Arts.
  Coming to the theatre situation in general (and I was pleased that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, ranged so wide; I do not see any objection to trying to broaden our ideas about these matters.). I think we are all agreed, and that every member of the Government in his individual capacity is agreed, that the preservation of the theatre in the West End of London is a cultural interest of supreme significance. There have been leading articles in all the main newspapers, and
  380
  there was one in The Times this morning which includes, after a powerful argument, this extract:
  "Perhaps it is time that, as a nation, we took more collective responsibility for the drama, and integrated it with our commercial enterprise as a social necessity."
  That is the utterance of informed opinion, and I should think, and hope, therefore. that certainly, so far, I have the noble Lord and his colleagues with me, and that they would agree with this: that anyone who calls himself even half-civilised and I make no pretensions to go beyond that level—must feel not only depression, but disgust, at the idea of a theatre in the West End being pulled down in order that more profit can be made out of the site by building offices
  The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, made a strong point the other day, in a sense, though not perhaps a relevant point on anything that has appeared up to now, of the fact that the former Minister, Mr. Duncan Sandys (and I know that the right honourable gentleman Mr. Duncan Sandys is a great lover of beauty, in spite of his preoccupation with more terrible things) had attached certain provisions in 1955 to the London County Council Development Plan. One such provision made it plain that permission would not be given, except in very special circumstances, for a change of user for office purposes, of residential buildings and places of assembly such as the St. James's Theatre—even in an office zone or central zone. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, left us to infer from that that, while this might not help us on this occasion, if this provision had been in operation when this "slipped through the net" permission would never have been given. It seems, indeed, to be a common doctrine, agreed on all sides, that an error has occurred, not through any design of the Government, if you like, but through a mistake of the London County Council which is now much regretted by all, including the Ministers.
  So far, what I have said will apply to any West End theatre, and would come under the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Blackford. But, after all, the St. James's Theatre is not just another theatre; it is a theatre of unique associations. I am not going to offer my own opinion, which would be of little value, as to its architectural value. I am

  381
  content to rest myself on the leading article in The Times which says:
  "The building itself graces by its elegance an area which, despite changes, remains the admiration of connoisseurs of architecture."
  Quite frankly, I feel that if that can be said in a leading article in The Times, we must accept it for the purposes of our discussion and make up our minds that there is something of real value in that sense.
  But, of course, associations are, I suppose, what weigh most heavily with us, and still more heavily, perhaps, with the acting profession. We have heard—and I was glad to hear—from the spokesman of the acting profession, though I had to leave the House during part of his speech. I feel in this matter that greater importance should be attached to what the actors and actresses say about it, and I am not sure that up to now sufficient importance has been attached to it.
  I do not know whether your Lordships watch the television, but I, for reasons of my own, listened last night to Miss Margaret Rawlings, and she explained far more clearly and a great deal more eloquently than I can what I might call the creative influence of a great tradition of this kind. The overwhelming opinion of the theatrical profession is no doubt doubly concerned about the contemplation of sacrilege. They say, and I am sure they are right, that it is the thin end of a very evil wedge. It is a case of impending doom for every theatre. But they are also protesting passionately, if I understand them aright, at the clodhoppers' standpoint, according to which this centre of theatrical inspiration is just a pile of bricks and mortar which is standing in the way of another and somewhat more lucrative pile.
  I know the hour is late, but we all care about this matter, and perhaps I may be allowed to remind your Lordships of what Burke said on a different subject when he was writing about the Revolution of Critics:
  "On this scheme of things a king is but a man; a queen is but a woman; a woman is but an animal and an animal not of the highest order.… The scheme of this barbarous philosophy is the offspring of cold hearts and muddy understandings."
  I have not the slightest hesitation in sticking that label on anybody who goes into the Lobby on the other side.
  382
  I will not stop to argue the question of whether the pillars at the St. James's Theatre are in the way. No doubt there are modifications which could be made. I had another look at the theatre this morning and some of the criticisms seem exaggerated; but no doubt modifications could and should be made. I heard Miss Margaret Rawlings say last night that she had stood at the back of the gallery and heard every word perfectly. Mr. Gilbert Harding. I am bound to say, said that he could never hear a word there, but she suggested that there was another reason for that, whatever was in her mind. I think we must take in that the actors and actresses, the people who understand what acoustics are and the people who depend on the audiences, love this theatre, and they are far better judges, I think, than the wiseacre who sets himself up as an expert in various offices which I will not specify. We have had real experts tonight in the form of my noble friend Lord Silkin and the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, in the sphere of Town Planning Acts. In the last resort, if I am asked, "Is this a theatre in which great acting can be performed?", I would say that the opinion of the actors and actresses is what convinces me.
  So far I feel that the noble Lord will say that he is not violently out of sympathy. But then we come to the stage when the noble Lord is to tell us what the Government propose to do. Do they propose to save this theatre? That is what we want to know. It is no good the noble Lord shuffling this off. It is no good his saying it does not come his way. It comes very much his way—it is very much on his plate. The noble Lord has a sharp responsibility, although I agree he shares it with his colleagues.
  What has happened? The noble Lord will tell us, and it has been brought out forcibly, that he is sorry this ever occurred. He made it plain he deplored the action of those involved.
  LORD MANCROFT: That is going a bit far.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I do not want to hold up the House. He actually said [OFFICIAL. REPORT, Vol. 204, col. 905]:
  "The Government much regret the selling of this theatre by theatre interests to commercial interests."

  383
  It is admittedly an error, and it is in the power of the Government to set it right. Why will they not? They say they will not do so because it would cost money to set it right and they will not pay for it themselves, and they will not force the London County Council to pay for it. That is their position in a nutshell.
  I do not want to be too sharp about the attitude of the noble Lord and his colleagues. If I were to speak very plainly at this stage I should have much more to say. I think most people who love the theatre would regard that attitude in itself as wretchedly feeble, stingy and shortsighted. As I say, I do not wish to speak too strongly because I wish to conciliate the noble Lord before I close. It is not a question of using violent words or standing here and throwing epithets at the noble Lord and his colleagues. What we want to do is to save the theatre, and that is the issue on which the House will be taking, no doubt, a critical decision in the light of the noble Lord's speech before we close.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, what about the immediate situation? We were told of various bodies who are seeking and may be able to find the money required for compensation or, if necessary, for acquisition. I hope the noble Lord will not stand there to-night and say that we have not left him a cheque in the course of the debate, and that these proposals have been made at the last minute. The Times had some rather sharp words about the Minister—not the noble Lord, but the right honourable gentleman Mr. Brooke—in that connection. The Times said the responsibility is on the London County Council
  "who owe it to themselves, after all their expressions of regret, to be more forthcoming than they have so far been. A clear and detailed statement of the costs involved in retention would make it easier to start a public fund."
  I hope the noble Lord will not say, "If only we had had this a few months ago, then, of course, we could have acted: but now I am sorry to say it is too late. We are just going off for the holidays and there is a reasonable chance of this being forgotten. "I hope he will not give an answer along those lines if he values his reputation, which stands high in this House.
  384
  I have not forgotten that the purchaser, Mr. Fenston, is an important figure in these discussions. I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said was appropriate: we have no reason at all not to suppose that he is a gentleman of public spirit. He certainly did what he could in the Mayflower venture and I am quite ready to regard him as more, rather than less, publicly spirited than the average man. I hope that all that has been said to-night will be helpful rather than the opposite in any discussions with Mr. Fenston.
  In the last resort the responsibility comes back to the Government. It cannot be avoided; it rests there. It is one of the great privileges of Government to take these crucial decisions, naked and alone. The noble Lord has been informed—I think he can take it authoritatively—that great efforts are beginning to be made, which may be promising (of course guarantees cannot be given), by responsible people to raise the money; and they could hardly have been made much earlier.
  The clear question that must be put to the noble Lord is: are the Government going to give time for the money to be raised, or are they going to proceed to allow the demolition of this theatre simply because sufficient time has not been granted? If they say "It is out of our hands, morally if not legally; the demolition must run its course; we do not know whether the money will be raised", and if the theatre came down while money was still being collected, I venture to say—if I may use an expression which I hope I shall not have to apply—the noble Lord and his colleagues would stand dishonoured in his own eyes and in the eyes of his friends and opponents and fellow countrymen. I beg the noble Lord to say definitely that time will be given.
  I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will press—and certainly I would urge him to do so—that either his Resolution or its equivalent be accepted. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, would not satisfy us by saying he would place everything before the Minister. If he can give the assurance that there will be time—three months, four months, six months, whatever time is necessary—to give those who are embarking on the task of saving the theatre

  385
  a chance to carry through their work, then I imagine (though it will be for the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to say this) that he will not press his Resolution. Otherwise, it will have to proceed to a Division; and if that happens I shall never have gone into the Lobby with more conviction that we were on the right side and that the other side were in a position where they were bound, as men of honour, to be ashamed of themselves.
  8.22 p.m.
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, as your Lordships are painfully aware, I have the duty to answer in your Lordships' House for a number of persons, Ministers, and Departments. But I wish to make it perfectly clear at the outset that I have no responsibility to answer for the chairman of the planning committee of the London County Council; or for Mr. Felix Fenston, or for anybody else who may be externally concerned with this theatre. Many of the points that have been raised in this extremely interesting debate, and many of the questions that have been asked, ought, I suggest, to have been addressed to other people. In so far as it lies within my responsibility to answer for Her Majesty's Government, I will try once again to put before your Lordships' House, as plainly as I can, the reasons which have prompted the Government to take the action they have done. May I deal with two aspects? The first is the preservation of the St. James's Theatre itself, and the second is the proposal to build offices in its place.
  To deal first with the question of preservation, your Lordships, I think, know that the only existing power to prevent the demolition of the theatre is that contained in Section 29 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Under this section, the local authority, which in this case is the London County Council, can, with the approval of my right honourable friend the Minister, make an order for the preservation of any building of architectural or historical interest. Section 30 requires the Minister to compile a list of such buildings for the guidance of the local planning authorities. In this particular case, the Minister has been advised by a very high-powered Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir William Holford. That Committee has not been backward in making recommendations. Although it
  386
  contained no theatrical expert, it was well versed in the problems which we have been discussing this evening. The Committee was aware of, and bore in mind, all the considerations to which your Lordships have given voice. Indeed, as I say, the Committee was not backward in making similar recommendations. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, raised the question of the Haymarket Theatre. He meant Her Majesty's—that was the one he was talking about—but the Haymarket is one of those—there may be others—which has been placed on the special list.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I got muddled. I was referring to the Theatre which was adjacent to the Hotel.
  LORD MANCROFT: Yes, the point I am making is that this particular Committee had gone into this matter very carefully. It decided which theatres should appear on the list and which should not. One which appeared on the list was the Haymarket Theatre, and one which did not was the St. James's Theatre.
  I do not join in the denigration of the St. James's Theatre. It is a very pleasant, friendly little theatre. It is associated, as we all know, with famous actors, famous managers and famous plays. I yield to none, and certainly not to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, in my love of the London theatre. But are these facts enough to qualify this theatre for preservation when this Committee has not placed it on the list? My right honourable friend wishes to follow the advice of this Committee. That is why it was set up. If he followed the advice arbitrarily on one occasion and not on another, there would be complete confusion. One cannot preserve a building merely because of associations or potential theatrical use, under the pretext that it is a Section 30 building. Even if this theatre had been of greater architectural or historical value I am doubtful whether it would be correct to retain it, no matter what the views of the owners, while it grows, as we have been told it will, progressively more out of date, and harder to keep reasonably in repair.
  The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, told us about its financial fortunes of late. It has been fortunate enough to have had

  387
  one or two excellent plays which ran a long time and did well. The noble Lord gave the figures. If they are correct—as I am sure they are—it makes it all the more regrettable that theatrical interests saw fit to sell the theatre to non-theatrical interests. I was going to say that this was not a first-class theatre. I should not go so far as to say that there is anything "archaic" about it—the word was used by somebody far more qualified to speak on this than I am. But it could not in any circumstances survive indefinitely. Rebuilding, which cannot be far off, is going to be extremely difficult, with the present L.C.C. regulations about fire, sanitation, and all the problems of its very limited frontage. That was the point which the noble Lord Lord Gifford made; an interesting point which we may have to bear in mind in the future. The blunt fact is that the theatre does not qualify for preservation willy-nilly. There is no power that I know of in law to preserve theatres as theatres. There is no power to compel a man to run a theatre if he does not want to. Neither the Government nor the L.C.C. are in a position in this context to restrain demolition.
  Now may I turn to the use of the site for offices? The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, twitted me a little, perhaps fairly, into expressing my personal opinion. I stick to my personal opinion. I should regret to see this theatre go. I have expressed this opinion before on my own behalf. I repeat that the Government and the L.C.C. both regret that permission has been given for offices to be built here. This is not to say that at the time when that was done, in 1954, the L.C.C. ought to have rejected the application. As I have just said, I literally hold no brief for the L.C.C., but I think they have been somewhat inaccurately treated in the course of the whole history of this decision. It has been suggested that the decision was governed by low financial plotting and motives. Mr. Felix Fenston, if I read him correctly in The Times of July 19, said that
  "the decision to apply for consent to build offices on the theatre site was made by the L.C.C."
  That is not strictly so. The sole issue was whether it could be held that an office building was then out of place in St. James's Street. The cost to the rates was
  388
  not then involved. The Development Plan—this is most important—submitted by the L.C.C. to the Minister in 1951 provided that offices were a proper use in this area. The London County Council concluded that they could not turn down a proposal which accorded with their then plan. The whole point of a Development Plan is to have a public document publicly approved after objection and inquiry. The purpose is to guide owners and developers in making their plans. It is impossible to prescribe the use of every inch, every brick and every stone. This Plan does not, and cannot, compel people to use land in particular ways and in no other. It lays down the broad policies within which development and redevelopment may take place.
  Now we come to the intervention of my right honourable friend the present Minister of Defence, Mr. Duncan Sandys. When he heard this story about the St. James's Theatre, he thought that the provisions of the Plan ought to be tightened. He agreed with the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, I told him a few days ago, that the loss of further theatres was undesirable. He therefore caused to be written into the Plan the provision that permission would not be given, except in very special circumstances, for the replacement of theatres, among other places of assembly, by offices. That was not the state of affairs when this matter first arose. This action by my noble friend was part of a general tightening of restrictions on further office development in Central London. The London County Council, I understand, are now pursuing this policy with vigour.
  In 1951—I would ask your Lordships to bear this in mind—the use of planning powers to prevent office growth in Central London, with which we have all now become familiar, was still very tentative. The powers which were used then were mainly to get factories out of London. Experience in the past few years has stiffened the attitude towards offices. The amendment of my right honourable friend Mr. Duncan Sandys had the particular intention of preventing theatres from being unnecessarily sacrificed to more profitable office blocks. He intervened because it was this particular case of the St. James's Theatre that was brought to his notice. When the decision was given, the alteration had not taken place. All right. Why not revoke this permission

  389
  which was given before the change brought about by my right honourable friend, before this more stringent policy was instituted? I hope to make it abundantly clear that the original London County Council permission was correct within their then declared broad planning principles, as they then obtained. The policy has now been changed. An application to-day would not be granted without the "special circumstances" to which I have just been referring.
  Your Lordships may ask why the St. James's Theatre decision cannot now be brought into line with the new policy I have described. I suggest to those who feel most strongly about this—and I sympathise with their feelings—that to bring the St. James's Theatre problem into line would be most inequitable. I do ask your Lordships in all sincerity to consider this fact. Whenever planning policy changes, as it must, for planning is a living idea, are your Lordships really going to say that permissions already given, but not in accord with the new policy should be revoked? I cannot think that such a form of retrospection would be anything but intolerable. It would bring injustice, inequity and chaos; and nobody would stand for that principle for one moment.
  Your Lordships ask, "Can you make just one little exception for the St. James's Theatre?" Apart from the question of compensation, to which I will come in a moment. Her Majesty's Government still believe that that would be wrong. Should this theatre really be retained, willy-nilly, even though its present owners have no intention of running it as a theatre? Consider for a moment, if you will, the question of compensation. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, made a most eloquent speech to-day which could not fail to move all of us. He referred to the question he put to me the last time this matter was debated. If I understood him aright, he suggested that compensation money may not be a matter which the Minister can properly take into account in deciding whether to exercise his powers to order revocation. That is what you are asking the Government to do this evening—let us be quite clear about that. We decided that under the preservation argument—
  LORD PAKENHAM: Who has decided it?
  LORD MANCROFT: Sir William Holford.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I am so sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I may have misunderstood him. He said "We decided". The noble Lord is referring to the Government, not to the House?
  LORD MANCROFT: I meant that, if Sir William Holford has not put this theatre into the class to which the section applies, the Government cannot put it in. Your Lordships are now asking the Minister to use his power of revocation and to persuade the London County Council to do the same. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has suggested that compensation money ought not to be a matter which the Minister can properly take into account in deciding whether or not to exercise his powers to order revocation. I think that argument is a little odd. Surely the Minister should not exercise his powers with complete disregard of the likely cost to the public. I have already explained, in previous debates and in previous answers to Questions, roughly what the cost for compensation might be, and why. I will not at this late hour repeat that argument. In any event, as I understand it, the law on this matter is clear.
  Section 21 says that the local planning authority can revoke permission if it appears to them expedient to do so, having regard to the Development Plan and any other material considerations. The Minister's power to intervene under Section 100 is a power to insist that an order should be made under Section 21 and, if it is not made, then he can make it. He is, therefore, bound by the conditions of Section 21. I would suggest that the expenditure of any significant sum of money would plainly be a material consideration in this connection. Both the Council and the Minister, I think, would be failing in their duty if they took no account of the cost of revocation. This is a point which I think we must never lose sight of. Any money spent or subscribed, with the hat taken round and benevolent and charitable-minded folk digging in their pockets, would be wasted unless there results from such an expenditure some assurance that the theatre will

  391
  continue to be run as a theatre. That is what some people tend to overlook.
  The revocation of planning permission for which your Lordships are asking this evening will not produce that assurance. It might, as I have told your Lordships before—and the Government have been roundly condemned by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, for ever mentioning the matter—result in a cleared site, an empty theatre or a cinema. I do not say that the theatre owner would have it done to spite the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, but that is what might happen. If you have to make people dig in their own pockets you must have as your object the purchase of at least a controlling interest in the property. Merely raising enough money to compensate whoever is entitled to compensation is not enough. You have to get enough money to have a controlling interest to run it as a theatre. We do not want to run it, as the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, does not want to run it, as a cinema or a Turkish bath. He wants to continue it as a theatre, and you must have enough money to retain a controlling interest in it. But the figure might be£250,000, even assuming—and we do not assume this too readily—that the present owner is willing to sell. This seems a high price to pay for an old and rather inconvenient theatre, however much beloved it is and however bright its associations may be. Her Majesty's Government have thought over this very carefully. I hope that nobody is accusing me of barbarism or of reaching for my revolver when I hear the St. James's Theatre mentioned. I make no bones about my own feelings in this matter.
  LORD STRABOLGI: I thought I had made it clear in my speech that we on this side of the House were fully aware where the noble Lord's sympathies lay.
  LORD MANCROFT: I put my revolver back again. Having done that, I look at the logic of this case. Whatever the sentiment may be, I acknowledge it readily and criticise it not one whit. Neither the Minister nor the London County Council can prevent the demolition of St. James's Theatre unless it is declared a building of special architectural or historic interest. It has not been so declared; therefore, we cannot do it here. Would it be right for the London County Council to revoke permission? Would it be right for the
  392
  Minister to override the London County Council, as he can in extreme cases do, and revoke permission himself?
  My Lords, we have had much talk this evening of—I speak colloquially—passing the hat round. It is to the owner of the theatre, surely, that these approaches should be made. He should be asked whether he wishes to sell. Has he been approached? Have the instigators of this fund talked to him about it? Is he willing to sell? How much does he want? Who will run the theatre? All those are relevant matters, but they are relevant matters to the owner of the property and those who have the money, if they have it, to offer. My Lords, I am putting it as bluntly as I can. To order revocation in the way we have been asked would, Her Majesty's Government think, be most improper and most inequitable. Her Majesty's Government much regret that, having given very careful thought to the matter, they have come to the firm decision that they will not intervene.
  8.42 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, before putting this matter to a Division, I feel, whilst having the right of reply, that I do not want to exercise it except to make quite clear what we are dividing about. What we are dividing about is simply that sufficient time should be made available before the theatre is demolished, to enable the necessary money, whatever it may be, to be raised. Whether that period is three or six months can be a matter of negotiation. But within that time we shall know whether these promises that I have referred to in my speech can be realised, and whether we can give an assurance that the theatre will be maintained as a theatre. I agree with the noble Lord that unless that assurance is given, then any money that is raised is thrown away.
  What we want is that the theatre should be maintained as a theatre for all time. A certain amount of time is needed for that. The way to secure it is by revoking the consent. There is nothing inequitable in that—the Act provides for it in certain circumstances, and I am sure that the Act would not provide for anything inequitable, because at the same time it provides for the payment of proper compensation. Therefore, the revocation is subject to the payment of proper compensation, and all that is asked for is that

  393
  in view of the fact that the public were quit, unaware of what was taking place, a certain amount of time should be allowed in order to test whether sufficient money can be raised to save this theatre. That is the issue upon which we are

  CONTENTS

  Alexander of Hillsborougb, V.

  Darwen, L.

  Rockley, L.

  Devonport, V.

  Gifford, L.

  St. Just, L.[Teller.]

  Soulbury, V.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Sandford, L.

  Stansgats, V.

  Lawson, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Mathers, L.

  Silkin, L.

  Ailwyn, L.

  Morrison, L.

  Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

  Brocket, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Strang, L.

  Conesford, L.

  Pakenham, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

  Onslow, E. [Teller.]

  Blackford, L.

  Perth, E.

  Chesham, L.

  Home, E. (L. President.)

  Selkirk, E.

  Dynevor, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Bridgeman, V.

  St. Oswald, L.

  Davidson, V.

  Templemore, L

  Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

  Hailsham, V.

  Waleran, L.

  Gosford, E.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and Resolution agreed to accordingly.